A consumer is entitled to have a defect-free machine. It is not enough to sell a machine to a consumer, it should be ensured also that the machine should be kept in a running condition.

Mr. Justice Amal Kanti Bhattacharjee, President—This is an appeal against an order dated 14.3.1995 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malad, in Case No. 16/ 94 allowing in part a claim for refund of X-ray machine sold to the complainant along with compensation. The respondent/petitioner is a medical practitioner and she purchased an X-ray machine for a value of Rs. 3,45,920/- from M/s. Wipro G.E. Medical Systems Ltd., Bangalore. Unfortunately, however, the machine did not work properly after the purchase and began to show troubles. As per agreement between the parties the X-ray machine concerned with accessories was installed at a total cost of Rs. 3,45,930/- and handed over to the petitioner on 12.1.1991. The petitioner noted that a slip dated 20.9.1984 was attached inside the machine with the writings "all components received after repair (major)." It indicated that the machine was a second hand one and sold after repairing of the tube head of the machine. The petitioner made a complaint to the O.P./appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and at her request the machine was repaired on 12.8.1991. The machine, however, did not run well even thereafter, and started showing defective functioning, which was intimated to the Company on 3.12.1991. This time also the Company repaired the machine but repeated repairs of the same reduced the working capacity of the machine and at last the same stopped functioning on 23.1.1992. The petitioner paid repairing and service charges to the tune of Rs. 47,000/- on different occasions but the Company ultimately gave out that it was not responsible any further for the proper functioning of the machine. This led the petitioner to file the aforesaid complaint before the District Forum, Maldah with a prayer for refund of the value of the machine, for refund of the repairing cost and service charges already paid and for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of income and mental agony. The Company contested the case inter alia denying its liability to repair the machine. It raised a preliminary point that the case was not maintainable before the Forum as the petitioner was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Company denied that the machine was a second hand one. It had also contended that the machine became defective on account of the inept handling of the machine by the petitioner.

2. The learned District Forum after hearing the parties and considering the documents placed before it held that the petitioner had prima facie proved her case and that the machine was really defective. It also held that the case was maintainable before it, the petitioner being consumer under the Act. It had, therefore, allowed the petitioner's case in part and decreed the claim for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. two lakhs) along with a compensation for professional loss of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. The present appeal is against the said order.

3. The only point for consideration is if the order of the District Forum is correct and if the respondent should be entitled to the amount allowed by the Forum.

DECISION

4. Admittedly the machine was purchased and was commissioned by the Appellant at the clinic of the petitioner. There was a preliminary objection if the petitioner was actually a consumer under the Act and if the case was maintainable. The Forum has found that the petitioner was a consumer as she had purchased the machine not for any commercial purpose but for her own livelihood. There is nothing to show that this decision was wrong. The respondent has referred to a judgment dated 17.5.1996 passed in S.C. Case No. 64/0/1995 passed by this Commission wherein in similar circumstances it was held that the petitioner was a consumer as the disputed machine was purchased for the livelihood of the petitioner. We are in agreement with the learned Forum that the petitioner having purchased the machine for her livelihood is a consumer and can