ADDITIONAL BENCH BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

C.C.No.221 OF 2017 Between:

Mr. Pentyala Siva Prasad, The Proprietor of M/s. HI END RADIOLOGY, H.No.11-5-511/1, Venkateshwara Colony, Road No.3, Saroornagar, Hyderabad – 500020.

… Complainant And M/s. Global Health Services, A-35, Street No.10, Part-3, Main Circular Road, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Rajpooth.

…Opposite party Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. K. Visweswara Rao Counsel for the Opposite Party : M/s. MVR Suresh & Associates QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO - PRESIDING OFFICER-

MEMBER - (JUDICIAL).

&

HON’BLE SMT.R.S.RAJESHREE, MEMBER (NON JUDICIAL).

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE ORDER: (PER HON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, N-JUDICIAL)

1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainants U/s. 17(1)(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 on 06.11.2017 against the Opposite Party to direct them as follows:-

(i) To refund a sum of Rs.26,86,000/- with interest @18% per annum with monthly rests from 18.04.2017 till the date of realization, which is the cost of the defective equipment of the Seimens Somoton Spirit with a dual slice machine.

(ii) To pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony, hardship and serious inconvenience.

(iii) To pay costs of Rs.40,000/- and pass such and further order or orders which the Hon’ble state Commission deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts of the case: The case of the Complainant is that he is self-employed and eking out his livelihood by running a concern viz., M/s. Hi End Radiology. Opposite Party is the supplier of medical equipment and medical machinery etc,. That as he was in need of somatom spirit CT scan dual slice machine, he ordered the same from Opposite Party. Upon which the Opposite Party quoted the sale price of the machine as Rs.26,86,000/-. Accordingly, the Complainant opted to purchase a same and paid an advance of Rs.10,00,000/- through RTGS on 30.08.2016. Thereafter, further payments were made on 11.01.2017 i.e., in total the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.24,86,000/- by 11.01.2017. Upon receipt of the said amount the Opposite Party had delivered the equipment on 28.03.2017. That though the Opposite Party had delivered the machine, but failed to deliver dongle of the said equipment and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for the said dongle. The Complainant had paid the Rs.2,00,000/- on 18.04.2017. Upon such payments the Opposite Party had sent the dongle on 10.07.2017. The invoice of the purchase is dated 10.10.2016 whereas the delivery challan is dated 20.02.2017. The technician of the Opposite Party visited Hyderabad and tried to start the machine, but however, the machine showed “detector error.” As such, the Opposite Party left the premises without staring the machine. Upon verification the Complainant had noticed that the machine bears the detector No.20036 whereas, the Opposite Party had given the detector bearing No.22462, that is when the Complainant realized that the Opposite Party had misled and exploited the Complainant by supplying defective detector bearing No.22462.

That the Opposite Party when he visited on 25.05.2017 to install the machine has intentionally removed the original detector bearing NO.20036 and fixed the said detector to some other CT scan machine belonging to M/s. Thumbay Hospitals, Chadarghat, Hyderabad. That the Complainant had requested to Opposite Party on several occasions through mails and SMS to replace the detector. But, however, the Opposite Party failed to replace the same. That as the machine was not functioning from the date of purchase the Complainant could not use it and the Opposite Party did not respond to the requests made by the Complainant, the Complainant was compelled to file a police complaint at Saroor Nagar police on 27.07.2017 and the police had registered a crime No.516/2017 which is under investigati