R DHARIWAL Vs. MILES INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is carrying on business in the name and style of Medico Clinical Laboratory at No.21, Kalakar Street, Calcutta-7. He carries on clinical tests. The opposite party- respondents are manufacturers of pathological reagents and kits for carrying on such clinical tests. One Mr. B. Sarkar, Sales Representative of the Respondent Company stationed at Calcutta approached the petitioner for an order for auto-analyzer sometimes in April 1987. The petitioner placed an order for such an analyzer and paid an advance Rs.25.000/- also, and the balance amount was agreed to be paid on delivery of the instrument, complete in all respect including32 auto-pack kits. The representative of the respondent informed the petitioner that they were coming out with an improved model of instrument and so the instrument together with the autopack kits and training was settled at Rs.1,48,000/-. The respondent delivered instruments on 14.9.1987 and supplied only 14 kits and certain important kits were not supplied. And hence the instrument could not be operated upon. The Medical Representative of the opposite party how ever approached the petitioner that within 8 to 12 weeks a 11 the kits will be supplied. But he failed to do so. And inspite of repeated requests and visits to the Regd. Office of the respondent at Baroda for which he has spent about 7000/- rupees it bourne no fruitful result. The kits that was supplied had a limited span of life i. e. for 4 years over and above that the balance of kits were not supplied. In January 1990 the representative of the respondent offered 20 free kits out of 27 kits. Leaving behind 7 important kits. Hence the petitioner could accept the same and returned the kits, and requested him to supply the entire number of kits. As a result of this the petitioners lost important clients and professionally he lost his business. The petitioner has been duped by the respondent and he asked him to take back his machine which is useless without the entire set of kits. Accordingly he prays that the respondent be directed to take back the machine on payment of a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the loss and injury caused to him professionally.

(2.) The respondent however in his defence has only taken the ground that the petitioner is not a consumer coming within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. And this Court has no jurisdiction to take entertain his application. This is a belated plea as finding no way out he has taken this ground. We hold that he is a consumer and that he has been duped of a auto-analyzer for which he spent an advance of Rs.25,000/- which is of no use to him, professionally. They suffered great loss and damage in his business, accordingly we compensate him by an order of Rs.5,00,000/- to pay that the opposite party within a period of one month from the date of this order.