NETWORK LTD Vs. VIJAI PRAKASH GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by M/s. (sic.) Network Limited, Nehru Place, New Delhi against the order passed on 16.11.1996 by the majority of the District Forum, Agra passed in Case No.322/1995. By the minority judgment the complaint was dismissed by the President on 6.11.1996 while the two Members on 16.11.1996 allowed the complaint and directed appellant-opposite party to replace the necessary parts of the Ultra Sound Scanner Model Nebula (machine) within 30 days and to pay Rs.30,000/- as damages and in case the machine is not repaired in time. The opposite party has further been directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest at 18% on 31.3.1994 while by the minority order the President in his order dated 6.11.1996 has come to the conclusion that the complainant-respondent Dr. Vijai Prakash Goyal is not a consumer as the Ultra Sound Scanner Machine has been purchased for commercial purpose and as such complaint is not maintainable.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Mahesh Singh, Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Mehrotra, Counsel for the respondent and orders were reserved.

(3.) The facts of this case in brief are that the complainant-respondent Dr. Vijai Prakash Goel has purchased an Ultra Sound Scanner Machine from the appellant for the Maternity and Nursing Home run by him alongwith his wife who is also a doctor. The machine was valued at Rs.5 lakhs. It was alleged that the said Ultra Sound Machine was defective and due to that the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.1,50,000/- towards professional loss. The complainant-respondent prayed the District Forum through his complaint for removal of the defects in the said Ultra Sound Scanner or its replacement together with a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. Before the District Forum the appellant has contested the case and raised the legal objection alongwith challenging the defects of the machine on merits. The legal objection raised by the appellant- opposite party before the District Forum was that the complainant is not a consumer as the machine in question was purchased for commercial purpose being used in running of a Maternity/nursing Home alongwith his wife to earn the profit and not as an earning of livelihood. According to para 10 of the complaint the respondent-complainant has specifically stated that he has suffered a loss on account of mental agony of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- on account of professional loss totalling to Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus according to the appellant the complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum.