PRADEEP DUTTA Vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one 'real Time Ultrasound Scanner Model Sigma Cardio' alongwith extra 12" Monitor and Mobile Trolly manufactured by M/s. Kontron Instruments, Switzerland for a consideration of Rs.4,91,996/- from the respondent. It is alleged that he has not been supplied the imported trolly and imported extra High Monitor 12" by the respondent. Consequently, he has prayed that the respondent be directed to supply the Mobile Trolly and extra 12" Monitor both manufactured by M/s. Kontron Instruments, Switzerland or, in the alternative they be directed to refund the price of the aforesaid items. He has also prayed that an amount of Rs.2 lacs be awarded to him for the financial loss suffered by him due to non supply of the aforesaid goods, which prevented him to undertake various jobs.

(2.) The complaint has been contested by the respondent. It has been inter-alia. pleaded that the aforesaid machinery was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of business and consequently, he is not a Consumer as defined in Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. They have also denied the allegations on merit, but it is not necessary at this stage to give the same.

(3.) The preliminary question that arises for determination is whether this Commission has got the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Mr. Sapra learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the machine was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of business and therefore, he is not a Consumer. He also submitted that the machine was sold for an amount of Rs.5,25,000/- and not for Rs.4,91,996/- On the other hand the learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the machine was purchased by him for the purpose of research work and not for that of business and consequently, the Commission has got the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.