Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant has approached this Forum against the Opposite parties with this application under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with his grievance that on 29.04.2004 he gave a quotation to the Opposite parties for purchase of a medical equipments for his clinic costing of Rs.14,75,000/- in response to which the Opposite parties sold the equipment with 2 years warranty. The equipment was delivered and installed in his diagnostic center on 10.06.2004. That after 2 months thereafter the medical equipment started giving trouble, as it was defective. Noticing its deficiency he wrote letters to the Opposite parties on different dates to attend to his problem, but the Opposite parties did not bother to attend to the problems of the equipment. But after some time the Opposite parties inspected the equipment and performed procedures to restore the machine for good working condition and was kept under observation. On 30.04.2005 the Opposite parties again performed regular preventive maintenance service and found that the Software was yet to get corrected, but the machine again gave trouble and the Opposite parties subsequently also inspected and carried out corrective methods but defects were not set-right and thereby the Opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service and thus the Complainant has prayed for a direction to the Opposite parties for a sum of Rs.14,75,000/- being the cost of the equipment with interest at 21% p.a. and compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.<br /> 2. The Opposite parties were duly served but they remained absent as such were set exparte on 08.04.2008 and the Complaint was posted for affidavit of the Complainant and for arguments. After receipt of the affidavit evidence of the complainant, the Complaint was posted for arguments to 15.04.2008, on that day Sri S.P. an advocate filed a memo undertaking to file power for Opposite parties, since the Opposite parties had already been placed exparte, the memo was rejected as not maintainable and the Complaint was posted for arguments to 16.04.2008. On 16.04.2008 we heard the arguments of the counsel for the Complainant and posted the Complaint for order to 30.04.2008. On 28.04.2008 that advocate Sri.S.P. in the office has filed power for Opposite parties 1 & 3 who are one and the same with an application for advancing the case from 30.04.2008, but not mentioned to which date he sought for advancing, besides this the affidavit annexed to this application is not sworn by the complainant and that copy of advanced application has also not been served on the counsel for the complainant. Along with them, the counsel for Opposite parties 1 & 3 have filed an application for setting aside the exparte order passed against the Opposite parties 1 & 3 and to afford them an opportunity to defend the complaint, even the affidavit annexed to this application is also not sworn. None of the Opposite parties or their advocate appeared before this Forum today to make any move in this regard, therefore, the applications which are filed, for the reason that advance application was not served on the counsel for the complainant and the applications are not accompanied with affidavits of the Opposite parties 1 & 3, are liable to be rejected and therefore are rejected and the case has been taken for posting orders on merits today.<br /> 3. As could be seen from the grievances of the complaint, the complainant who is a Radiologist and Sonalogist having a Diagnostic Centre at Mysore admittedly purchased medical equipment from 1st Opposite party in which 2nd and 3rd Opposite parties are working at Bangalore. The 1st Opposite party is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply of medical equipments is at Bangalore and that 2nd and 3rd Opposite parties who are working in that unit are also residents of Bangalore. Admittedly, the Opposite parties are not either carrying on their business of manufacturing or dealing in medical equipments at Mysore nor they are working for gain at Mysore. Admittedly the Opposite parties are not carrying on any of its activities at Mysore. The Opposite parties on the request of the complainant shown to had supplied medical equipment, installed in the diagnostic center of the complainant at Mysore and even have attended to the problems of the medical equipment at Mysore on the request of the complainant. Therefore, none of these activities can be held to have any relativity of the wordings expressed under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, for this Forum to get territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint. Further, it cannot also be said that part of cause of action arose in Mysore as defined under section 11(2)(c) of the C.P.Act, because the mere supply of medical equipment by the Opposite parties on the request of the complainant, its installation and servicing cannot be construed to have given raise for cause of action arising in part. Therefore, this Forum in our considered view has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and to decide under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the complaint in our view is liable to be returned to the complainant for presenting it to the proper Forum. With the result, we pass the following order:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint, therefore the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant for presenting it to the proper Forum. <br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />