Back
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President;
Miss S. Brar, Member & Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member
DR. LALITA BADHWAR—Complainant
versus
PRADEEP KUMAR KUMRA & ANOTHER—Opp. Parties
C-545 of 1992—Decided on 14.2.1994
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. B. Narain, Advocate.
For the O.Ps. :Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate.
A consumer is entitled to a refund of the price of a defective product, interest on the amount, and damages for mental agony and suffering.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(d) - REFUND OF PRICE OF DEFECTIVE CAMERA - COMPENSATION FOR MENTAL AGONY AND SUFFERING - CONSUMER ENTITLED TO REFUND OF PRICE, INTEREST, AND DAMAGES FOR MENTAL AGONY AND SUFFERING.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a Karl Storz End vision Camera from the respondent for research work. The camera developed defects within a year and the respondent agreed to provide a different model. The complainant alleged that the new model was not meant for sale in advanced European countries and was therefore substandard.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainant was a consumer as she purchased the camera for research work and not for commercial purposes. The court also held that the complainant was entitled to a refund of the price of the camera, interest on the amount, and damages for mental agony and suffering.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer. 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a refund of the price of the camera. 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to interest on the amount. 4. Whether the complainant is entitled to damages for mental agony and suffering.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 includes any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration. In the present case, the complainant purchased the camera for research work, which is not a commercial purpose. Therefore, she is a consumer. 2. The respondent admitted that the camera supplied to the complainant had gone out of order and that they had agreed to provide her with a different model. However, the complainant alleged that the new model was not meant for sale in advanced European countries and was therefore substandard. This allegation was not denied by the respondent. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to a refund of the price of the camera. 3. The complainant is entitled to interest on the amount from the date of purchase of the camera till the date of repayment, as she is paying interest to the bank at the same rate. 4. The complainant is entitled to damages for mental agony and suffering as she had to face inconvenience and harassment due to the defective camera.
Final Decision: The complaint was allowed with costs. The respondents were directed to pay the complainant the amount of Rs. 2,69,000, the price of the camera, with interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.5.92 till the date of payment and Rs. 15,000/- on account of damages within 3 months of the date of the order.
Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President—Briefly the facts of the case are, that respondent No. 2 M/s. Delhi Hospital Supply Corporation is carrying on the business of Hospital and Medical Equipment supplies in Delhi and respondent No. 1 is its President. The complainant purchased one Karl Storz End vision Camera from the respondent on 13.5.91 for a consideration of Rs. 2,69,036.25 (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Nine Thousands Thirty Six and Twenty Five Paise only). It is pleaded, that the complainant is invited to national and international conferences to deliver lectures and read papers on her research on the new technique in pelvis copy surgery and the camera was purchased by her for research work mainly.
2. The camera carried a warranty for a period of one year. However, it developed defects in late Feb. 1992 and went out of order on 10.3.92. On her complaint to the respondents their Technical Manager, Mr. Surinder Mehta examined it and said that it was required to be sent back to Germany for repair/replacement. He later took delivery of the camera for replacement/repairs, on 27th March 1992. In the end of April 92 respondent No.l informed her that the Camera had manufacturing defects and therefore, the model had been withdrawn from the market and she would be provided with a different model (Endovision 9050 from M/s. Karl Store, Germany) at no extra cost within 20 days. It is further pleaded that inspite of the assurances that a service camera would soon be sent to her to tie over the warranty period, it was supplied late but that Camera also developed the same defects after some time.
3. It is averred that the new model sought to be given to the complainant suffers from inherent defects and it is not meant for sale in U.S.A., Europe and other advanced countries. Consequently, she has claimed for the refund of the price of the camera with interest on that amount @ 18% p.a., escalation in price of the Camera and compensation for mental agony and suffering.
4. The complaint has been contested on behalf of the respondents; They have inter-alia pleaded that the Camera was purchased by the complainant for commercial purposes and therefore, she is not a Consumer. It is, however, admitted by them that the Camera supplied to her had gone out of order. They have pleaded that they have procured a new equipment and informed the complainant vide the letter dated 2nd Jan., 1993 about it. She intentionally and deliberately did not take delivery and was putting the respondents to harassment. The first question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is a consumer. It is mentioned in the complaint by her that she purchased the camera in furtherance of her research work and it was used by her for that purpose mainly. She, further, stated that she was invited to national and international conferences, where she read papers on her research work. The allegation of the respondent that it was purchased for business purposes was denied by the complainant. From the pleadings and affidavit of the complainant it is evident that the main purpose for which the camera was bought and being utilized by her was research work. In case some operation was performed by her for the purpose of research, it cannot be said that it was being used for commercial purpose. She is self employed Doctor and no evidence has been led to the effect that she was running a hospital or nursing home.
5. A reference has been made by the respondent to two cases namely Abhey Chemicals Limited v. Kantibhai D.Patcl I (1993) CPJ 17 (NC) and Swaraj Mazda Ltd. v. Mohan Kumar Bhandari & Anr, I (1993) CPJ 54(NC). We have gone through the judgments of both the cases. In Abbey’s case (Supra) the machinery purchased was of the value of more than Rs. 10) Lacs and it had been purchased for starting manufacturing activity at a large scale. In those circumstances, it was held that the machinery had been purchased for commercial purpose. In Swaraj Mazda’s case (Supra) the complainant had
