AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE case of the complainant M/s. Sree Jayadev Medical Centre is that it is running a Hospital. It made an order with the opposite party Company who are manufacturers of hospital equipments for supply of X-ray machine and Boyles Apparatus Operation THEatre Table deluxe model, operation theatre lights satellite model and O.T. Trolley curved type. THE opposite party issued proforma invoices. Based on these invoices the complainant sought for financial help from the Investment Trust of India Ltd., at Nungambakkam and they financed Rs. 5,00,000/- and the complainant had paid him a marginal amount of Rs. 2,20,366.40. THE said items excepting X-ray was supplied to the complainant on 9.7.1996. As suggested by the opposite party the complainant purchased the X- ray machine from the Pinnacle Products, Annanagar, Madras. As per the invoice full amount was paid to the opposite party by the Investment Trust of India Ltd., including the price for the X-ray machine. THE opposite party promised to pay the X-ray machine amount to Pinnacles Products. THE original price of X-ray machine was Rs. 2,27,400/- but the opposite party stating that the price of the machine was Rs. 3,20,000/- had received that amount. THE opposite party had paid only a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to Pinnacles Products and not the balance amount. On account of this the Pinnacles Products is demanding payment of the amount or returning the X-ray machine. THE complainant borrowing the amount from Dhandapani Finance had paid the amount due to Pinnacles Products. When the complainant started using the equipments supplied by the opposite party, he found them to be second hand and inferior quality. THE opposite party had cheated the complainant. Because of the supply of inferior quality equipments the complainant could not run the Hospital till date and he had sustained a loss of Rs. 15,00,000/- and he could not pay back the amount to the Investment Trust of India Ltd. THE complainant sent legal notices to the opposite party twice but they have not chosen to reply to the same. On these grounds the complaint has been filed claiming compensation under different heads all totalling to Rs. 19,20,366.40.
THE opposite party has remained ex- parte. The question that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and if so what relief can be granted to the complainant.
Point : The first question that arises is whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act who can maintain the complaint. A perusal of the complaint shows that for supply of medical equipments to the complainant, M/s. Investment Trust of India Ltd., had financed. The averment in the complaint clearly shows that the amount was paid to the opposite party by the said Investment Trust of India Ltd. That being the case, if at all, the said Investment Trust of India Ltd., would be the consumer vis-a-vis the opposite party and not the complainant. Excepting stating that the medical equipments have been supplied to the complainant upon the order placed by it, it is not stated as to how the opposite party will be liable if, as stated in the complaint, there were defects in the equipments and there was any breach of agreement regarding supply of the X- ray machine. During his evidence the representative of the complainant had filed Ex. A6 dated 22.11.1997 as a notice from the In vestment Trust of India Ltd., to the complainant. A perusal of it shows that the complainant had entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with the said Investment Trust of India Ltd. This shows that until the loan amount had been paid by the complainant, the medical equipments would belong to the Investment Trust of India Ltd. This being the case there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party. It is not the case of the complainant that he had paid the entire amount to the Investment Trust of India Ltd., and he had become the owner of the equipments. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act a complaint can be filed only by that consumer to whom the goods are sold or delivered. In the present case, the Investment Trust of India Ltd., had paid the amount and the goods can be said to have been sold or delivered only to that Company and the complainant cannot be said to be consumer much less a consumer who can file a complaint.
THEREFORE the complaint is not maintainable. As such it is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.