Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/847

DR LAXMICHAND KISHANCHAND KUKREJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SOUTH INDIA SURGICAL CO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

S SAWANT

24 Aug 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/847
(Arisen out of Order Dated 25/06/2010 in Case No. 609/2009 of District Kolhapur)
1. DR LAXMICHAND KISHANCHAND KUKREJA232 KUKREJA NURSING HOME NEAR TELEPHONE BHAVAN TARABAI PARK KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. M/S SOUTH INDIA SURGICAL CO LTDLAXMI INSURANCE BUILDING FIRST FLOOR SIR P M ROAD FORT MUMBAI MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBERHon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT :Mr.Manoj Gujar, Advocate for the Appellant.

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Presiding Judicial Memebr.

 

(1)          This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 25/06/2010 passed in Consumer ComplaintNo.609/2009, Dr.Laxman Kishanchand Kukreja V/s. South India Surgical Co. Ltd., by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (in short Forum below).

 

(2)          Undisputed facts are that, Appellant/Complainant placed an order of Pentax Endomicroscope  System with the Respondent/Original Opposite Party and certain amount as an advance was also paid.  According to the Complainant the balance amount was to be paid on delivery and on installation of the system.  However, machine was not installed and supplied, therefore, this consumer complaint was filed to get refund of an advance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- paid.  Consumer complaint stood dismissed as per impugned order and feeling aggrieved thereof this appeal is preferred by original Complainant.

 

(3)          We heard Mr. Gujar, Advocate for the Appellant.

 

(4)          On perusal of record, it reflects that, the Opposite Party disputed any breach of contract to supply the machine on its part.  Whatever it may be, but, considering the nature of the consumer complaint and prima-facie accepting the statements of the Complainant which are made in the consumer complaint, the complaint is filed to get recovered the amount of advance paid for delivery of the goods, i.e. Pentax Endomicroscope  System, since the said delivery of the system and the installation was not effected.  The area of the dispute relates to alleged breach of contract, which has nothing to do with the consumer dispute.  The consumer complaint does not fall within the purview consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The allegations of alleged of breach also cannot be enquired into or relief cannot be granted u/sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  For this reason also the dismissal of the complaint cannot be faulted with.

 

(5)          Thus, in view of the above referred circumstances and for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order, we find the appeal is devoid of any substance.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

 

O  R  D  E  R

 

  Appeal is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly.

 

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 24 August 2010

[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]PRESIDING MEMBER[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]Member