M.S.SRINIVASAN vs ROB MATHYS (INDIA) P.LTD

THE complainant is an Orthopaedic Surgeon practising at Bangalore. In order to get his patients brisk, quick and efficient service, in operating, by investing about Rs. 3,00,000/- , he. purchased instruments including AO Phenuinatic Air Drill from the respondents. Without AO Phneumatic Air Drill, the other instruments cannot be used. He gave that instrument for repairs to the respondent and the respondent has not returned it after repairing it. Hence, he has filed this complaint for recovering the cost of the instrument together with interest at 24% and Rs. 50,000/- towards damages and costs.

THE complaint is resisted by the respondent by contending, inter-alia, that the complaint is not maintainable as the. complainant had purchased the instrument for commercial purpose and as such he will not be. a consumer. We. heard the learned Counsel for the. parties on the question whether the complainant is. a consumer and whether his complaint can be entertained by this Commission.

The learned Counsel for the complainant urged that as the complainant is using it for operating his patients, it cannot be, said that he purchased it for commercial purpose. On the. other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent urged that as the. complainant was making profit by using the said instruments for operating his patients and collecting fees from them, the purchase is for commercial purpose, and so he. will not be. a consumer.

IT is not disputed that the. complainant purchased the instrument in question for providing brisk, quick and efficient service to his patients. IT is not his case that he. is performing operations free of charge. In fact he has states in the. complaint that he is doing private practice. In Annexure R-4, which is a letter written by the. complainant to the respondent, he. has stated that he. has incurred heavy loss during the post 10 months as he could not use those instrument during surgery. The learned Counsel for the complainant did not dispute the genuineness of Annexure R-4. He fairly admitted that it is a letter written by the complainant to the respondent. From this, it is clear that the complainant had purchased the instrument for making profit. Commercial purpose has not been defined in the Act. So its common meaning should be given and according to that, commercial purpose is that purpose, the objection or aim of which is to make profit In this case, as the complainant has purchased the machine for earning more money and making profit, we hold that he has purchased them for commercial purpose. If that is so, he will not be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, his complaint cannot be maintained, before this Commission.

IN the result, the complaint is dismissed. Under the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.