SARAT EQUIPMENTSAPPEL Vs. INTER-UNIVERSITY CONSORTIUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh at Bhopal, dated 22.1.1994 by which the opposite party, appellant in this appeal, was directed to pay Rs. 1,02,000/-.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant-respondent, Inter-University Consortium, a Society established by the University Grants Commission, purchased an X-Ray Generator from M/s. T.R. Technology (Rigaku) and a Water Chilling Plant was needed for the same. M/s. T.R. Technology recommended water circulation system manufactured by the appellant. The respondent made an inquiry from the appellant for the supply of water chilling plant. After correspondence it was agreed between the parties that the appellant would supply water circulation system (chilling unit) to meet the requirements of two systems viz., Rigaku Rotating Anode X-Ray Generator (12KW) and the XPS/UPS system. The price including all expenses upto installation and satisfactory demonstration was settled at Rs. 1,55,428/-. 75% of the price was payable at the time of delivery at Indore and the balance 25% after the proper installation and demonstration. The unit was to be installed within two weeks and the opposite party had guaranteed successful and proper functioning of the unit for a period of 12 months. The equipment was supplied and the complainant required the opposite party to instal and demonstrate the plant between 15th April and 20th April 1991. After the plant was installed and demonstrated the complainant wrote to the opposite party on 11th May 1991 complaining that plant was defective and was working with only about 0.7-ton capacity while it should work with 5 ton capacity. The opposite party was required to do the needful before 15th May or to take back the plant and return the money paid by the complainant. The case of the complainant was that the opposite party promised to do the needful, but nothing was done. Ultimately, the opposite party checked the plant and found that the compressor was defective and replaced it. Even after replacement, the plant was found working only around 1 ton capacity instead of the capacity of 5 tons. The opposite party went on seeking time to repair the plant. Ultimately, when this was not done, the complainant had to get the plant repaired from local market at a cost of Rs. 27,000/-. According to the complainant he suffered losses and damages due to delay in commissioning of the plant and estimated the damages as Rs. 1 lakh. With this grievance complainant approached the State Commission with a demand of Rs. 1,27,000/- towards compensation.

(3.) Needless to say that the complaint was contested on behalf of the opposite party on various grounds. It was contended that the chilling water circulation system for the plant was being used by the researchers and the complainant charged fees from those researchers for using the said machine and, therefore, the transaction was commercial and not covered by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also pleaded that the system could not be installed within the stipulated time for reasons attributable to the complainant alone; the opposite party was ready to instal the system but the machine with which the said system was to be attached had not been received by the complainant; that there was no manufacturing defect in the system; the reason why the system has not given the desired result was also attributable to the lapses on the part of the complainant; mishandling of the system was the reason for the system not giving desired performance; Gas leakage was due to mishandling of the system. The repairs said to have been effected by the complainant were not necessary and it was not necessary to replace the compressor also. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions.