AGFA GEVAERT INDIA LTD. vs JITPAL X-RAY PRIVATE LTD.

THIS is a Revision Petition against the order of 7th April, 1993 passed by the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh in Appeal No. 1274/SC/92. By this order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the Revision Petitioner. The brief facts are that the complainant-respondent M/s. Jitpal X-Ray Pvt. Ltd. had purchased an X-Ray machine manufactured by the Revision Petitioner in 1990 for a sum of Rs. 83,064. The machine worked only for 39 days from 17th July, 1990 to 15th October, 1990. The District Forum held that the machine was defective. It was urged before the District Forum that the machine had been purchased for a commercial purpose and therefore, did not attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The District Forum ruled that the preliminary objection was without substance. It held that the machine supplied was defective and should be either set right or its price Rs. 83,064 refunded.

THE State Commission also held that the purchase of the machine by the complainant was not for a commercial purpose and as such upheld the order of the District Forum. In the Revision Petition, the order of the State Commission has been assailed on the ground that the respondent complainant is a private limited company and as such is not a ''consumer'' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and that the machine purchased by it had been employed for commercial purpose. It is urged that this was not a case of purchase of goods for self-employment and that the purchaser was carrying on business for profit as a commercial enterprise.

AFTER hearing the Counsel and going through the record, we find that there is merit in the contention raised by the Revision Petitioner. The complainant respondent is a Private Limited company. It is running a Diagnostic Laboratory, Skin and D. Clinics at Moradabad. There are five doctors managing this Clinic who are professional Radiologists, Pathologists and undertake X-Ray and Ultra-sound etc. As such it has been urged that the company is doing the medical and clinical business on large scale and the persons cannot be deemed to be self-employed making a living for themselves. A priori the respondent complainant is a commercial Clinic and as such the sale of the X-Ray machine by the Revision Petitioner to the respondent complainant is hit by Section 2(1)(d)(i) which lays down that "a person who obtains goods for any commercial purpose is not ''consumer'' as defined under the Act. On this short ground, therefore, the Revision Petitioner is allowed and the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside. There is no order as to costs.

AT the time of admitting the Revision Petition, we had, by our order of 14th July, 1993 granted interim stay of the enforcement of the order of the State Commission on the condition that the petitioner deposited before the State Commission for payment to the respondent a sum of Rs. 40,000 towards the amount awarded under the impugned order. The amount so paid was subject to the ultimate result of the Revision Petition. In the light of the order passed above, the amount of Rs. 40,000 paid by the Revision Petitioner to the respondent complainant is now, to be refunded to the Revision Petitioner by the Respondent-Complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.