H.L.G. Memorial Hospital Private Limited vs Blue Star Engineering & Electronics Limited

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

Appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated March 21, 2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court at Asansol in Money Suit No. (Commercial) 15 of 2024.

By the impugned judgment and decree, learned Trial Judge has dismissed the suit of the appellant.

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, appellant purchased a second hand MRI machine from the defendant. He has referred to the purchase order and the acceptance of contract. He has contended that, the defendant issued a warranty for two years in respect of the machine supplied.

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, since inception, the MRI machine suffered from various defects. Despite the defects having been pointed out, the respondent did not attend thereto. He has referred to the electronic emails exchanged between the parties from time to time.

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, since the MRI machine was not functioning and that, the respondent failed to act in accordance with the warranty, appellant sought replacement of the machine on June 24, 2020 as well as on November 19, 2020. He has contended that, that respondent promised restoration of the machine on December 5, 2020.

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the appellant intimated the respondent of all issues relating to the machine from the inception. He has pointed out that the machine had defects and that it was the obligation of the respondent to rectify such defects in terms of the warranty clause in the purchase order. He has referred to the electronic email exchanged between the parties in this regard.

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the defective functioning of the machine was sought to be explained by the respondent on the ground of earthing problem and presence of rodents. He has pointed out that, the pre installation work was done by the respondent itself. At that point of time, no complaint was raised by the respondent with regard to earthing or the rodent problem. He has referred to the various electronic emails exchanged between the parties in this regard.

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the installation check list was prepared by the respondent. He has pointed out that, such installation check list did not indicate any issue of rodent. Moreover, the respondent did not point out any steps to be taken with regard to the so called rodent. He has pointed out that, the installation was made on June 12, 2019 and that the check list was prepared on such date.

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has referred to the series of breakdown of the machine and the steps taken with regard thereto. He has contended that save and except the alleged presence of rodent as noted in the service report on December 8, 2019 no other service report contains any adverse remark as against the appellant.

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the issue with regard to the rodent problem is also without any basis since the technicians were appointed by the appellant at the behest of the respondent. Such technicians did not complain about the so called rodent issue.

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, there were inherent faults in the NVRAM and the Motherboard. In this regard he has referred to the emails issued by the respondent from June 24, 2020 till December 5, 2020.

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the claims of the appellants.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has referred to the impugned judgment and decree. He has submitted that the learned Trial Judge, noted the relevant aspects of the matter.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has contended that, the machine sold and delivered by the respondent to the appellant did not suffer from any inherent defect. According to him, the machine had ordinary wear and tear since it was a second hand machine.

Referring to the warranty clause and the conduct of the parties, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has contended that, all complaints of the appellant had been attended to satisfactorily. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the complaint dated July 10, 2019, December 3, 2019, December 17, 2019, January 23, 2020 and August 25, 2020. He has contended that, all complaints had been attended to satisfactorily by the respondent.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the deposition of the witnesses of the plaintiff. He has contended that, the two witnesses of the appellant stated that the machine was a pre-owned one. Plaintiff Witness No. 1 had said that the first service of the machine was done on July 10, 2019 and that he did not have any knowledge about the replacement of the NVRAM.

Referring to the evidence of the plaintiff witness no. 2, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has contended that the appellant acknowledged that the respondent attended the calls at the initial stage. He has pointed out that, the respondent arranged a training programme between January 23, 2020 and January 20, 2025.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has contended that, there was nothing wrong with the machine concerned. It was issued with regard to the training of the personnel handling the machine. Respondent had trained the personnel of the appellant for the running of the machine.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has contended that, the appeal should be dismissed.

Plaintiff had filed the suit seeking refund of the value of the machine and a decree for damages. In the plaint, the plaintiff had claimed that it purchased one MRI Scanning Machine from the defendant. Engineers of the defendant had installed such machines and that the machine had come into operation on and from January 12, 2019. Appellant had claimed that the respondent agreed and promised proper functioning of the machine for two years from the date of its installation.

In the plaint, the appellant had claimed that, the machine had become inoperative on and from January 12, 2019 itself. It had lodged the complaint on June 12, 2019. Plaintiff had complained on July 10, 2019. Defendants had attended to such complaint on July 11, 2019. Thereafter, again on December 3, 2019, the machine had become defunct and a complaint was lodged. Respondent had attended such complaint on December 6, 2019 and created a fault on December 8, 2019. According to the appellant, machine had become defunct on December 17, 2019. Respondent had replaced such default on December 18, 2019. The machine had become defunct on January 23, 2020. Respondent had repaired the same on December 25, 2020. Thereafter the machine had become non-functioning on and from August 25, 2020.

Appellant had stated in the plaint that, by a letter dated November 19, 2020, appellant had called upon the respondent to replace the defective machines. Despite having received such notice, respondent had not replaced the machines. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed the suit.

Respondent had filed the written statement. In its written statement, respondent had stated that, the appellant approached the respondent for purchasing a pre-owned MRI Machine and placed an order by letter dated January 17, 2019. On June 12, 2019, respondent had handed over such machine to the appellant. On July 10, 2019, respondent received the first service call relation expiry of NVRAM after installation of such machine on June 12, 2019. According to the respondent, NVRAM expiry is a regular warning message and to remind the user to replace NVRAM. According to the respondent it was the advance warning. Respondent had attended the same and replaced NVRAM chip within 24 hours.

According to the respondent, on December 3, 2019, it received the service call from the appellant. Respondent had attended the site on December 5, 2019 and found that there was a rodent attack on the MRI System which was the breakdown of the machine. On December 17, 2019, respondent had received a call from the appellant which was attended to December 18, 2019. Respondent had diagnosed the problem pertaining to cable connection/contact problem which was resolved.

Respondent had received the complaint on January 23, 2020 for additional support for training of the appellant personnel and accordingly the respondent had arranged three days training between January 23, 2020 to January 25, 2020. Respondent had received a call on August 25, 2020 and upon inspection of the machine, it was found that some board of the UPS were burnt. The problem was diagnosed as deterioration in the quality of the earthing and weak neutral line. According to the respondent it had discharged all its obligations of warranty.

At the trial, learned Trial Judge had framed five issues which are as follows:-

At the trial, appellant had examined two witnesses. PW1 has stated that the machine was a pre-owned one and that the first service of the machine was done on July 10, 2019. He however stated that he had no knowledge of the replacement of the NVRAM chip. He had aknowledged that, after NVRAM chip was replaced the machine started functioning. Immediately after complaints were lodged the respondent had repaired the defects which were numerous in number. He had aknowledged that between January 23, 2019 engineers of the respondents had attended their premises.

PW2 in his evidence has stated that he was working as an administrator of the appellant. He has also admitted that the MRI Machine which was purchased was a refurbished machine. He has stated that he was not a technical person. According to him, the respondent had attended calls at initial stage and did not attend the same at a latter stage. He had acknowledged that the respondent arranged the training programme between January 23, 2020 and January 25, 2020.

Plaintiff witness No. 3 had stated that he had Diploma in Radiological Equipment Technician. He has stated that he usually informs the appellant as to the problem already with the MRI machine.

Respondent had examined one witness. Such witness of the respondent had stated that, the machine purchased by the appellant was a pre-owned one. He has aknowledged that two years warranty was given from the date of installation of the machine. He has stated that after installation, the machine was found to be in working condition. In cross examination he has stated that, at the time of installation of the machine the respondent was satisfied with the civil and electrical work. He has acknowledged that, all instructions given by the respondent to the appellant for installation of the machine were complied with. He has stated that, the machine was installed on January 12, 2019 and the first report of defect was received on July 10, 2019. He has stated that at the time of installation of the machine, the respondent was satisfied with the earthing and the neutral line.

By the impugned judgment and decree, learned Trial Judge has decided issues Nos (i) and (ii) in favour of the appellant. Learned Trial Judge has decided issues Nos. (iii), (iv) and (v) as against the appellant.

Evidence at the trial established that, appellant purchased a pre-owned MRI machine from the respondent. Evidence has also established that, the machine was under warranty that is to say that, the respondent was obliged to repair any defects in the machine for a period of two years.

Appellant had placed the order for purchase of the MRI machine by a letter dated January 17, 2019 which was marked as Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 has a warranty clause which is as follows:-

Installation of the machine had taken place on June 12, 2019. Subsequent to the date of installation, appellant had made 9 complaints between the period July 10, 2019 till October 19, 2020. A chart showing the date of the complaint and the date when, such complaint had been attended to by the respondent is as follows:-

Appellant had attended every complaint of the respondent during the period as noted above, to the satisfaction of the respondent. Therefore, the conclusion that the learned Trial Judge has drawn on the three issues namely issue no. (iii), (iv) and (v) at the trial cannot be faulted. Appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case has failed to establish that, the respondent failed to act in accordance with the warranty or that, the respondent was obliged to refund the price of the goods sold and delivered.

None of the causes of the machine not working for the period as has been noted above, can be attributed to the respondent or to the machine being defective when the respondent sold and delivered the same to the appellant. As has been noted above, the machine was installed on June 12, 2019 and had performed satisfactorily till July 10, 2019 when the first complaint was made. The nature of the complaint was with regard to the NVRAM chip which the respondent had satisfactorily explained and in any event had performed its part of the obligations under the warranty. NVRAM chip problem has not recurred till the filing of the suit.

The next complaint is dated August 27, 2019 again had been attended to on that date itself. Similarly, subsequent complaints had also been attended to by the respondent. Respondent had trained the personnel of the appellant for the period from January 23, 2020 till January 25, 2020.

Earthing and rodent problems are not something which has to do with the machine itself. Location of the machine was at the site chosen by the appellant. Respondent cannot be blamed for such location to be rodent infested. Equally, earthing problem relating to wiring had been attended to.

The conduct of the parties along with the warranty clause in Exhibit 5 have established that, the respondent attended to all complaints lodged by the appellant from time to time. The respondent was under obligation in terms of the warranty clause at Exhibit 5 to replace the MRI equipment with all its accessories for 24 months from the date of installation. Appellant had purchased a pre-owned MRI machine. Respondent had replaced such portions of the machine which malfunctioned within the warranty period.

Appellant has failed to establish that, the entire machine has to be replaced or that, the respondent had failed and neglected to replace such portion of the machine which required attention.

In view of the discussions above, we have found no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit of the appellant.

AD COM 5 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.

I agree.