VASANTHI MEDICAL CENTRE vs CAPTIPOWER ENGINEERS (P.) LTD.

ON perusal of the complaint we find that the case of the complainant Vasanthi Medical Centre represented by its Managing Director Sri. M.S. Sethu is that he placed an order with the opposite party Company for supply of a diesel generator to the Hospital. This generator had been supplied by the opposite party, but the case of the complainant appears to be that there was delay in supply, and the supplied generator is a defective one and it is not functioning. ON these allegations the complaint has been filed claiming various amounts as compensation under different heads.

THE written version of the opposite party is that there was no delay in the supply of generator and there was no defect in the generator as alleged. THErefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. THE further case of the opposite party is that the generator had been purchased by the complainant for its business purposes and therefore the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning given in the Consumer Protection Act. The point that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party or the generator supplied is defective and whether the opposite parties are liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.

Point : While it is the case of the complainant that there was delay in supplying the generator, the opposite party would contend that there was no delay on their part. Even if there was delay in the supply, from that alone it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service since that will amount to mere breach of agreement. It is not the case of the complainant that there was intentional delay and that amounted to unfair trade practice. A reading of the complaint also shows that the complainants are not particular about the alleged delay. Their main case is that the generator supplied is defective. The complainant is a Hospital and it is a Company. According to the complainant this diesel generator was purchased for the purpose of use in. the Hospital. Clearly the purchase was for commercial purpose as contended by the opposite parties. This being so as stated in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant cannot claim compensation against the opposite party as consumer.

THUS we could see that there is absolutely no merit in the complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.