IMPORTANT POINT
It is responsibility of supplier company to depute qualified service engineer/s to determine fault and to ensure that requisite part(s) were duly available and to rectify fault, promptly and dutifully, at just cost.

The dispute relates to 2010, we are in 2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant – imaging and diagnostic co. and the respondent – dental institute were heard. The material on record was perused.

2. We observe that the Registry has reported a delay of 15 days in filing the appeal and that no application for the condonation of delay has been filed by the imaging and diagnostic co. The delay in filing this first appeal is however overlooked.

3. The dispute relates to defects in an X-ray machine supplied by the imaging and diagnostic co. to the dental institute not having been repaired during the annual maintenance contract (AMC) period.

4. The State Commission had heard both sides, appraised the evidence and allowed the complaint of the dental institute vide its Order dated 07.07.2011:

16. On the above said facts it can be considered that the complainants have filed this complaint to replace the defective x-ray machine with a new one which is functional and useful or in the alternative to repay the cost paid by the complainants with compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- which they assessed as the damage when they were unable to use the machine.

17. It is seen from the documents filed by the parties the complainants have allowed the technician of the OP to carry out the repair. But in spite of their efforts they could not rectify the defect permanently. The Engineers of the Ops visited the college and on thorough checking they found that the problem with CPU card and informed to the college authorities that the repair is beyond the respondents’ engineer. This one admission is enough to deny the other contentions taken by the Ops in their defense.

18. From the facts narrated above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Ops in not rendering the service required by a businessman to the complainants’ institution. The complainant is an educational institution which has been established to impart education to the qualified candidates. These defective materials have been supplied to an Educational Institution which ultimately affects the interest of the students which in turn affects the general public. Therefore, we are of the firm view the conduct of the OP is not appreciable and certainly it amounts to deficiency in service.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the Ops are liable to replace the x-ray machine with a new one or in the alternative pay the cost paid by the complainants. Hence we pass the following:

Order

The compliant is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace the Panormaic X-ray Machine (OPG) Model STRADO 2000d with a new one which is functional and useful to the complainants with fresh warranty within a period of four months. Failure to do so, the Ops are directed to pay Rs. 21,00,000/- to the complainant with interest at 12% pa from the date of compliant till realization subject to handing over possession of the x-ray machine which is the subject matter of this complaint to the Ops.

The Ops are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainants towards the costs of the proceedings.

(paras 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the State Commission’s Order)

(emphasis supplied)

5. We find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. We note in particular the extracts of the appraisal made by the State Commission, quoted, verbatim, in para 4 above.

6. The only short point in this case is whether the supplier co. was duty-bound to repair the subject X-ray machine during the AMC period.

7. The subject X-ray machine was supplied by the imaging and diagnostic co. to the dental institute on agreed cost and terms; the terms included a warranty of one year and an annual maintenance contract (AMC) of two years; the machine developed several technical defects during the AMC period; the defects, like malfunctioning of CPU, error 553 which signifies filament broken, were not / could not be repaired by the supplier co.; the d