By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,
1. It is the say of complainant that he booked for BS 300 Chemistry Analyzer (Diagnostic Instrument) with second opposite party through first opposite party and paid Rs.2,00,000/- as advance by way of cheque. The price of the same inclusive of all taxes in Rs.13,64,850/-. It is his case that on coming to know that the Chemistry Analyzer which were installed by opposite party in other places had defects, he cancelled the order and requested for refund. Complainant is aggrieved that opposite party refunded only Rs.50,000/- and issued a letter stating unsustainable grounds for non-refunding the balance amount. Hence this complaint, seeking to refund the balance amount with interest and compensation. 2. Notice issued to first opposite party was served. First opposite party neither appeared nor filed any version. First opposite party was set exparte on 28-01-2009. Second opposite party filed version admitting the contentions of complainant. 3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A4 marked for him. Counter affidavit field by opposite party. No documents marked for second opposite party. 4. Complainant has reiterated his contentions in the affidavit. On perusal of evidence and records we are able find that no goods were supplied to the complainant by opposite party. There was only an agreement to purchase goods. Apprehending that the goods might have defects, the order has been cancelled by the complainant. Sec. 2(d) of the Consumer protection Act defines a consumer. In order to satisfy the requirement of clause 2(d)(1), there must be a transaction of buying goods for consideration. The definition contemplates the pre-existence of a completed transaction of sale and purchase. A person who has merely entered into an agreement for purchase of goods will not come within the scope of this definition. Thus only a person who has bought any goods for consideration or has hired any services for consideration will be a consumer. It is specifically stated by complainant that the sale has not taken place. From the above discussions we are able to conclude that the claim of the complainant does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is not maintainable. Hence dismissed. Dated this 23rd day of June, 2009.
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/- MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4 Ext.A1 : Invoice dated, 31-12-2007 issued by first opposite party to complainant. Ext.A2 : Letter dated, 16-10-2007 sent by first opposite party to complainant. Ext.A3 : Letter dated, 28-01-2008 sent by first opposite party to complainant. Ext.A4series : Photo copy of the Lawyer notice with postal receipt and acknowledgement card dated, 18-8-2008 issued by complainant's counsel to 1st opposite party. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/- MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI | | 
