TRANSASIA BIO-MEDICALS LTD vs Ashok Kumar Singhal

-PETITIONER was opposite party before the District Forum in a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant Dr. Ashok Singhal, Healing Touches Hospital and Nursing Home.

COMPLAINANT had purchased certain machinery manufactured by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2,05,000. No steps were taken by the petitioner to instal the equipment or give necessary instructions to operate the same. Equipment was thus laying idle. Alleging deficiency in service complaint was filed against the petitioner which was allowed by the District Forum. Petitioner was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,05,000 with interest @ 12% p. a. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission. Still feeling aggrieved, petitioner has come before us.

It was vehemently argued by Mr. Wali, Counsel for the petitioner that complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint as there was no transaction under which the equipment was sold to complainant. It was submitted that M/s. Sushruta Surgico Medical Products had approached the petitioner for appointment as an authorised dealer of the equipment manufactured by the petitioner. The order for the equipment was placed by M/s. Sushruta Surgico Medical Products who also made the payment and invoice was also made in the name of M/s. Sushruta Surgico Medical Products. It was submitted that it was the duty of the Sushruta Surgico Medical Products to instal the equipment and provide training.

STATE Commission observed that in various cases it had been held that where the trader is either retaining the money of the consumer without supplying the article or without any just cause the same would amount to unfair trade practice. Mr. Wali contended that when the ordered goods by Sushruta Surgico Medical Products were subsequently sold to the complainant it was not its duty to instal the equipment and provide necessary training. But it could not be denied that the medical equipment was and for use in Healing Touches Hospital and Nursing Home M/s. Sushruta Surgico Medical Products with whom dealing was in progress for its appointment as authorised dealer of the petitioner would be selling the products to the ultimate user. The warranty which was issued is for the equipment and is for a period of 12 months. In the circumstances of the case it is quite apparent that M/s. Sushruta Surgico Medical Products acted as a dealer and then as an agent of complainant. Both the District Forum and State Commission have held that it was the petitioner to instal the machine and give necessary instruction for its operation. Before we conclude we may also note that in the District Forum, there was difference of opinion. While President and a Member allowed the complaint the other Member dismissed the same. In the impugned order of the State Commission it is recorded "we do not agree with the view expressed by the male member".

REFERENCE to male member is to 3rd Member who ordered dismissal of the complaint. We have not appreciated the use of terminology of male member. It is better that the word male member or female member is avoided and instead the names of the members are given. It would be more dignified. We, therefore, do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This petition is dismissed. R. P. dismissed.