CADILA HEALTH CARE LTD Vs. ANURADHA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL matrix of this case in brief are that Dr. Panduranga and his wife, Dr. Anuradha have been practising for the last 15 years. Anuradha Enterprises is owned by them and they had agreed to purchase a diagnosing equipment from M/s. Cadila Health Care Limited (for short 'Cadila') for Rs. 2,45,000. Shri Shiva Shankar, Senior Marketing Engineer of M/s. Cadila Health Care Limited delivered the ACTO Chemistry Analyzer at Hospet and installed the equipment on 27.2.1997 and warranty was executed for a period of one year. The Analyzer was being operated by a qualified technician and who was also trained by the official of Cadila. Subsequently, the equipment became faulty and the complainant intimated M/s. Cadila that the Analyzer had stopped functioning and started giving wrong and low readings. In short (here was a breakdown of the Analyzer. Mr. Nagendra, Engineer of Cadila attended to the defects and rectified the same on 13.12.1997 and photometer was also replaced on 8.10.1998. As the equipment did not function properly during the entire warranty period, M/s. Cadila extended the warranty period by six months on payment of Rs. 10,000 for maintenance. It continued to be faulty and M/s. Cadila was not able to remove all the defects. Accordingly, the complainant issued legal notice to M/s. Cadila claiming Rs. 2,45,000 with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of purchase and the damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000 towards the mental distress, loss of income, loss of professional reputation and refund of Rs. 10,000 paid for maintenance of the equipment.

(2.) M /s. Cadila contested the complaint by stating that the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Section 2(l)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Engineer of the Company had given a certificate to the effect that the Analyzer was working efficiently. M/s. Cadila further stated that the machine might not be working properly because of improper power supply or improper handling of the same. It was also handled by a non -qualified technician.

(3.) THE District Forum observed that the machine was repaired on several dates, atleast on 10 occasions. Though the respondent Company, M/s. Cadila had issued a certificate for having repaired the defects, M/s. Cadila has not filed any affidavit of evidence, on the other hand Mohammed Sayeed, their Engineer filed affidavit. He has not even whispered in his entire evidence that the purchase was made for a commercial purpose. Therefore, the pleadings of M/s. Cadila remain on record without proof. The machine was purchased by two doctors for their proprietary concern and not as commercial venture.