PRADEEP DUTTA vs Larsen and Toubro Ltd.

THE facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one ''Real Time Ultrasound Scanner Model Sigma Cardio'' alongwith extra 12" Monitor and Mobile Trolly manufactured by M/s. Kontron Instruments, Switzerland for a consideration of Rs. 4,91,996/- from the respondent. It is alleged that he has not been supplied the imported trolly and imported extra High Monitor 12" by the respondent. Consequently, he has prayed that the respondent be directed to supply the Mobile Trolly and extra 12" Monitor both manufactured by M/s. Kontron Instruments, Switzerland or, in the alternative they be directed to refund the price of the aforesaid items. He has also prayed that an amount of Rs. 2 lacs be awarded to him for the financial loss suffered by him due to non supply of the aforesaid goods, which prevented him to undertake various jobs.

THE complaint has been contested by the respondent. It has been inter-alia. pleaded that the aforesaid machinery was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of business and consequently, he is not a Consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. THEy have also denied the allegations on merit, but it is not necessary at this stage to give the same. The preliminary question that arises for determination is whether this Commission has got the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Mr. Sapra learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the machine was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of business and therefore, he is not a Consumer. He also submitted that the machine was sold for an amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- and not for Rs. 4,91,996/- On the other hand the learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the machine was purchased by him for the purpose of research work and not for that of business and consequently, the Commission has got the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have gone through the records. In the complaint the complainant has not mentioned anywhere that he purchased the machine for the purpose of research. He has specifically said in para No. 6(c) of the com plaint that he suffered monetary loss for non-supply of the above items, which prevented him to undertake various jobs. In para 4 it is stated that he made personal visits to sort out the matter with the respondent and sent written communications but they did not pay any heed, which resulted in the loss of money. In para 6(c) he has also made a request that an amount of Rs. 2 lacs be awarded as compensation for the financial loss suffered by him. From the aforesaid pleas, the only inference that can be drawn is that the machine was to be used by the complainant for the purpose of business; otherwise the question of loss in terms of money would not have arisen.

THE complainant is a medical practitioner by profession and he has got one more Ultrasound machine. THE machine is admittedly being used for the purpose of business. THE present machine has been purchased by him after about 2 years after the purchase of the earlier machine. It is common knowledge that in view of the technological advancement, some improvements are made by the manufacturers of the machines in each subsequent model. THE present machine it is stated before us has several advantages over the earlier machine possessed by complainant. It is also more expensive than the earlier machine. In these circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the complainant is using the machine purchased by him earlier for the purpose of business and that he purchased the machine subject-matter of complaint for the purpose of research work only. It is also relevant to point out that the complainant has admitted that he is not registered with any department of the Government where other persons who do research work, get themselves registered. Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines the word Consumer and reads as follows :- "Consumer" means any person who, - (i) buys any goods for a consideration..but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; (ii)It is evident from the definition that if a person purchase any goods for commercial purpose, he is not a Consumer.

AFTER taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is not a Consumer as defined in the Act. There is some controversy about the price of the machinery between the parties. The complainant says that as he has not been supplied the monitor, therefore, he was liable to pay only Rs. 4,91,996/- and not Rs. 5,25,000/- which was settled as price between the parties. It is not necessary for us to determine this controversy in view of the above findings. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the complainant is not a Consumer. He may initiate proceedings in a Court having jurisdiction in the matter. The complaint is dismissed subject to the above observation. No order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.