Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.      According to the complainant, right from the day one, the machine/instrument started giving troubles. The working/functioning of the same was erratic/defective. The matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties, from time to time, on several occasions. The erratic/defective functioning of the machine/instrument was reported to the Engineer/Official of Opposite Party No.1, at Chandigarh/Mohali, soon after the installation of the same. The Engineer/Official of Opposite Party No.1, visited the Laboratory of the complainant and tried to rectify the defects, but could not succeed. Again, in response to a complaint, made by the complainant, about the erratic/defective working of the machine/instrument, the Engineer/Official of Opposite Party No.1, visited the Laboratory of the complainant, on 03.11.2005. The complainant pointed out the problem of leakage in syringe. It was recorded by the Engineer/Official of Opposite Party No.1, in the action taken remarks Replaced the old defective syringe with new one. Handed over the equipment to customer in working order. However, the complainant was not satisfied with the repair work, done by the Engineer/Official of Opposite Party No.1. Thus, the complainant recorded, in the relevant column of comments that the machine was kept under observation. Within a few days, the same problem recurred. The complainant again made a complaint, at Chandigarh/Mohali office of Opposite Party No.1. The Engineer/Officer of Opposite Party No.1, again visited the Laboratory of the complainant on 16.11.2005. The complainant reported the problem of leakage in syringe/erratic results. The Engineer/Official of Opposite Party No.1, recorded in the observation column of the maintenance proforma Replacement of Teflon. Action taken report by the said Engineer/Official was Replaced the defective Teflon Tip with new one. Ran few samples, result O.K. Handed over the equipment to customer in working order. It was stated that the alleged repair was not satisfactory. Therefore, in the column meant for comments of the customer, the complainant noted very bad quality of syringe section. 3rd time it has been replaced with a span of 7 months.

5.      It was further stated that the problem resurfaced again, infact, it had never stood rectified. The complainant reported to the Engineer/Official of Opposite Party No.1, with regard to the same, who visited his Laboratory on 23.12.2005. The complainant told the Engineer/Official of Opposite Party No.1, that the machine was giving high/low results. The action taken report of the said Engineer/Official was Cleaned probe, cleaned Teflon of syringe section, reaction sector, ran two batches. M/C working OK. However, this time also, the repair was not upto the satisfaction of the complainant. Therefore, the comments were recorded by the complainant, in the observation column of the maintenance Proforma, that the machine was kept under observation. Again the machine faced the problem of flow cell. The Engineer/Official of Opposite Party No.1, visited the Laboratory of the complainant, on 13.2.2006 and replaced the flow cell assembly with new one and ran two samples. However, sensing the repair to be not satisfactory, the complainant recorded that the machine had been kept under observation. The defect reappeared within 4-5 days and the complainant again made a complaint, to Opposite Party No.1, the Engineer/Official of which visited the Laboratory of the complainant on 18.2.2006, and found that the machine was giving erratic results. He recorded his action taken report Checked the equipment and found that flow cell Assembly needs replacement. Flowcell was replaced. The Engineer/Official of Opposite Party No.1, again carried out preventive maintenance procedure on 8.3.2006, but the results were not satisfactory. Therefore, the complainant recorded his comments that the machine had been kept under observation. The machine continued giving erratic results, so the Engineer/Official of Opposite Party No.1, again visited the Laboratory of the complainant on 15.4.2006. The problem of erratic results was brought to his notice. The action taken report recorded by him was, Replaced the sample probe alongwith tubing to flowcell and flowcell to pump. Machine is under observation. It was further stated that, thus, it was clear even from the remarks of the Engineer/Official of Opposite Party No.1, that he was unable to rectify the problem of erratic results, on 15.04.2006. In his attempt, to rectify the problem of erratic results, the Engineer/Official of Opposite Party No.1, again visited the Laboratory of the complainant on 25.4.2006, and the action taken report recorded by him, on this date was, Checked and found in few batches may be once or twice result goes higher or lower side. Checked for air bubbles, dirty reaction sectors, but no problem found. Job continued. It was further stated that it clearly meant that the job of repair had not been completed by the Engineer/Official of Opposite Party No.1. The complainant recorded his comments, in the relevant column Machine is giving problem repeatedly, after being installed. Kindly replace it at earliest,

20.    The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the machine/instrument, in question, suffered from inherent manufacturing defects, right from the day of its installation, or not. It is proved, from the evidence, on record, that right from the day, the machine was installed in the year 2005, it started giving troubles. It is evident, from Annexure P-3 copy of the Technical Service Report No.128862 dated 03.11.2005, that the problem was reported by the complainant, in the machine, in the syringe. The action taken report recorded by the Engineer/Official of the Opposite Parties were Replaced the old defective syringe with new one handed over the equipment to the customer in working order. The Engineer/Official of the Opposite Parties also signed this report. The remarks recorded by the complainant, on this report, were that the machine kept under observation. Annexure P-4, is another Technical Service Report No.128902 dated 16.11.2005. The problem reported by the complainant was leakage in syringe/erratic results. The observations made by the Engineer/Officer of the Opposite Parties were Replacement of Teflon. The action taken report recorded by the Engineer/Official of the Opposite Parties were Replaced the defective Teflon Tip with new one, ran few samples, result O.K. Handed over the equipment to the customer in working order. The remarks recorded by the complainant, on this report, were very bad quality of syringe section, 3rd time it has been replaced within a span of seven months. Annexure P-5 is another Technical Service Report No.117823 dated 23.12.2005. The problem reported by the complainant was the same. The action taken report recorded by the Engineer/Official of the Opposite Parties was Cleaned probe, cleaned Teflon of syringe section, reaction sector, ran two batches. M/C Working OK. The remarks recorded by the complainant, on this report, were the machine/instrument kept under observation. Annexure P-6 is another Technical Service Report No.128940 dated 13.02.2006. The problem reported by the complainant was replacement of flowcell. The action taken report recorded by the Engineer/Official of the Opposite Parties, was replaced the old defective flowcell assy., with new one. Ran few samples, result O.K.. The remarks recorded by the complainant, on this report, were that the machine/instrument kept under observation. Annexure P-7 is another Technical Service Report No.128936 dated 18.02.2006. The problem reported by the complainant was erratic results. The action taken report recorded by the Engineer/Official of the Opposite Parties was checked the equipment and found that flowcell assy. needs replacement.. Flowcell was replaced on this occasion. Annexure P-8 is another Technical Service Report No.136545 dated 08.03.2006. This time action taken report recorded by the Engineer/Official of the Opposite Parties, was carried out preventive maintenance procedure. M/C working O.K.. The remarks recorded by the complainant, on this report, were that the machine/instrument kept under observation. Vide Technical Service Report No.143390 dated 15.4.2006, the problem of erratic results was brought to the notice of the Engineer/Official of the Opposite Parties. The action taken report recorded by the Engineer/Official of the Opposite Parties was Replaced the sample probe alongwith tubing to flow cell and flow cell to pump. Machine is under observation. The remarks recorded by the complainant, on this report, were that the machine/instrument kept under observation. Annexure P-9 is another Technical Service Report No.143393 dated 25.04.2006. The problem reported by the complainant was erratic results. The action taken report recorded by the Engineer/Official of the Opposite Parties was Check and found in few batches may be once or twice result goes higher or lower-side checked for air bubbles, dirty reaction sectors, but no problem found. Job continued. The remarks recorded by the complainant, on this report, were Machine is giving problem repeatedly after being installed, kindly replace it at earliest. Annexure P-10 is another Technical Service Report No.137073 dated 16.05.2006. The problem reported by the complainant was intermittently, some biochemistry test gives erratic results.

21.    Not only this, when the first machine/instrument, which was got installed, by the complainant, in the year 2005, from the Opposite Parties, was found suffering from inherent manufacturing defect, they replaced the same and installed a new machine, in July 2006, but the same also started giving some troubles, as is evident from Technical Service Report No.135114 dated 06.07.2006 itself. The problem reported by the complainant was erratic results during installation. It was observed by the Engineer/Official of the Opposite Parties that M/C was giving inconsistent results of BUN. The action taken report recorded by the Engineer/Official of the Opposite Parties was no permission given from the customer as the same problem observed after replacement of new M/C. The remarks recorded by the complainant, on this report, were New Machine is giving very poor result in the presence of Mr. Mahajan & Mr. Sandeep from Daman. So please refund the money with interest and compensation at the earliest, otherwise further action will be taken. Since the new machine/instrument was also giving the same trouble, and, it was not defect free, the complainant was left with no other alternative, than to get installed another machine, at his own cost, on 27.04.2007, after waiting for more than eight months, for the rectification of defects. The Counsel for the Opposite Parties, no doubt, submitted that the complainant did not allow them to install the new machine/instrument and this fact was mentioned in Job Card Annexure P-11. This submission of the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, was disputed by the complainant, who stated, in his affidavit, that it was wrongly and falsely recorded, when they failed to install the machine/instrument successfully. However, it is an admitted fact that new machine/instrument was installed, which was not defect free. Rajeev Mahajan and Sandeep, two Engineers/Technicians of the Opposite Parties, who installed the new machine/instrument were made parties to the complaint. They are the employees of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, but no affidavit was filed, on their behalf, to contradict the version of the complainant. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion, that new machine/instrument, which the Engineers/Technicians of the Opposite Parties installed, in the Laboratory of the complainant, also suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. The problem reported was erratic results during installation and the machine giving inconsistent results of BUN. This all goes to show that, there was no question of not giving permission, by the complainant, to install the machine by the Engineers/Technicians of the Opposite Parties, but, since it was giving erratic and inconsistent results, that was why, it was mentioned by the Engineers/Technicians of the Opposite Parties, that the same problem was observed after replacement of the new machine. In this view of the matter, it is held that in the action taken report, the remarks recorded by the Engineers/Officials of the Opposite Parties, that no permission given from the customer as the same problem observed after replacement of new M/C, therefore, being without any substance, could not be believed.