TRANSASIA BIO-MEDICALS LTD. Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.11.2012 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 856 of 2007 M/s. Transasia Bio-Medicals Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Jindal by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent proprietor of M/s. Deep Clinical Laboratory & ECG Centre, was running his laboratory for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment by assistance of his father and younger brother purchased Random Access Auto Analyzer from OP No. 1/petitioner vide invoice dated 7.3.2005 for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- and OP installed aforesaid instrument on 2.4.2005. From the day one, instrument started giving trouble. Functioning of instrument was defective and it was brought to the notice of OP and OP tried to rectify defects, but could not succeed. On 3.11.2005, OP replaced old defective syringe with new one and in November, 2005, again replaced defective Teflon Tip with new one; even then, instrument was not working properly and was giving erratic results and in February, 2006, Flow cell was replaced by OP; even then, trouble continued. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant does not fall within purview of consumer, as complainant was running laboratory for commercial purposes. District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction. It was further submitted that as and when defects were pointed out by complainant, they were removed/replaced with new instrument. It was further submitted that defects could be attributed to faulty electric connection, power fluctuation and improper operation and there was no manufacturing defect and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint against OP No. 1 & 2 and directed them to refund Rs.3,75,000/- with Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.