This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 26-11-2008 in the presence of Sri. M.Nagesh Babu , Advocate for Complainant , and of Sri.A.Ravindra, Advocate for the opposite parties; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member )
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The complainant is the owner of Kothagudem Diagnostic Centre, for the purpose of conducting blood tests he purchased a blood chemistry analyzer from the opposite party No-1 in the month of July,2002 for a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- and on 15-12-2005 the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.17,632/- towards annual maintenance contract. The machine was frequently giving troubles and causing inconvenience to the complainant, as such the complainant approached the opposite parties on several times and also contacted the officers of opposite party No-1, but there is no response from the opposite parties, as a result the said analyzer was not working for a period of 11 days i.e. from10-7-2006 to 20-7-2006 as such the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.2,66,200/- @ Rs.24,200/- per day and vexed with the attitude of opposite parties the complainant issued legal notice dated 4-5-2006 and after issuing the legal notice also the problem of the complainant has not rectified. The complainant further stated that the attitude of opposite party No-1 in attending the repairs amounts to deficiency of service and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation and prayed to direct the opposite parties for payment of claim of Rs.3,17,200/- and costs.
3. Along with the complaint the complainant filed Xerox copies of (i)letter dated 30-6-2002 addressed by the opposite party No-1(ii)cheque for Rs.10,000/- dated 2-7-2002 issued by the complainant(iii)receipt dated 21-11-2002 for Rs.2,78,000/- issued by opposite party No-1(iv)receipt dated 21-11-2005 for Rs.17,632/- issued by opposite party No-1(v)copy of legal notice dated 4-5-2006(vi)un served legal notice.
4. After receipt of notice the opposite party No-1 appeared through it’s counsel and filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
5. In the counter, the opposite party No-1 admitted the supply of 1 unit of Bayer RA -50 Chemistry Analyzer along with it’s accessories to the complainant and denied the other allegations of the complainant and as per the contentions of the opposite party No-1 the complainant running a Diagnostic Centre on commercial purpose and deputed technicians and other skilled staff to run his business as such the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint under the C.P.Act. The opposite party No-1 further contended that the complainant entering into an annual maintenance contract for a period of 1 year i.e. from 1-12-2005 to 30-11-2006 and they provided proper services to the complainant during the said period and the technicians of the opposite party No-1also attended the instrument from time to time, and they rendered their services to the complainant on 25-7-2006, 28-9-2006 and on 31-10-2006. The opposite party No-1 also contended that the complainant failed to recruit trained and skilled personnel for operating the said sophisticated machine, inspite of ignoring their advises and did not take any protective measures from frequent power cuts, as a result the machine got repairs and also stated that the complainant filed this false complainant without any repairs during the period of 10-7-2006 to 20-7-2006 and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
6. Along with the counter, Finance and Company secretary of the opposite party No-1 filed affidavit and also filed Xerox copies of (i)Letter dated 30-6-2002 addressed by the complainant to opposite party No-1(ii) Letter dated 30-6-2002 addressed by the opposite party No-1(iii)Preventive maintenance check list, dated 25-7-2006(iv)field service report, dated 28-09-2006(v) field service report, dated 31-10-2006.
7. The opposite party No-1 filed written arguments with almost all the same averments as mentioned in it’s counter.
8. In view of the above submissions made by both the parties now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed or not?
9. As seen from the averments of the complaint and counter there is no dispute between the parties regarding the purchase of blood chemistry analyzer from the opposite party No-1, and as per the complaint the said machine was frequently giving troubles and inconvenience to the complainant and the complainant made many representations to the opposite parties for rectification of repairs but the opposite parties failed to attend the repairs as a result the machine was not working for a period of 11 days in the month of July,2006 and the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.2,66,200/- as such he claimed the compensation from the opposite parties. On the other hand the opposite party No-1 contested the allegations of the complainant and stated that the complainant purchased the blood chemistry analyzer for his Diagnostic Centre, which was running on commercial purpose, as such the complaint is not maintainable under C.P.Act 1986, and there is no deficiency on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint and as per Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986- commercial transaction does not come under the purview of C.P.Act and as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 there must be a consumer dispute between the parties to the proceedings and as seen from the averments of the complaint, the complainant sustained loss of Rs.24,000/- per day for non- working of blood chemistry analyzer for a period of 11 days. As such we feel that it is a commercial transaction and also feel that the complainant carrying his business by deputing the employees and necessary qualified technicians, and the said machine is being operated by such technicians, not by the complainant personally for his livelihood as such there is no consumer dispute between the parties to the proceedings and moreover as per the job cards the machine got repaired on 3 occasions after the machine started giving troubles i.e., on 25-7-2006, 28-9-2006, 31-10-2006. As such the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.
10. In the result, the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 11th day of December, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
