IMPORTANT POINT
Commercial ventures are completely outside purview of C.P. Act.

Vinay Kumar Presiding, Member—This appeal is against the order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed in CD No.26/2007. The complainant Dr. D S Rao had made a consumer complaint against M/s. Wipro G E Medical Systems, from whom he had purchased an equipment for Rs.37 lakhs. The complainant, a doctor by profession had been running a diagnostic centre at Tirupati. He purchased a 4D colour Doppler Ultrasound Scanner system from the respondent on 14.5.2004, for Rs.37 lakhs. According to the complainant, the equipment had working problems soon after the date of installation. The service team of the respondent could not repair and cure the problem. The complainant allegedly, suffered heavy financial loss as, on the one hand he had to continue paying the EMIs of Rs.61,531/- a month and on the other, the machine continue to remain dysfunctional. His request to replace the machine was not agreed by the respondent. The complainant also came to know that the actual cost of the machine was only rupees 28 lakhs while he was made to accept a price of Rs. 37 lakhs.

2. The State Commission went into a detailed examination of the question whether the complainant had purchased the equipment for commercial purpose and if so, would it enable the complainant to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Commission? The Commission reached the conclusion that the complainant is not a consumer, within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the consumer protection act 1986. Therefore, the State Commission dismissed the complaint.

3. This order of the State Commission is impugned before us in the present appeal proceedings. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 12 days. Considering the circumstances explained in the application to condone it, the delay is condoned and the matter taken up for consideration.

4. The main grounds for appeal are that—

a. The machine was not purchased for commercial purpose. The complainant purchased it to earn his livelihood. The quantum of earning per day is not the criterion to decide whether he is a consumer or not. The appellant has income from his diagnostic center, which is below the income level of his colleagues working in government and private hospitals.

b. Even if the machine was purchase for commercial purpose, the buyer would be a consumer if the defects noticed during the warranty period are not rectified.

5. As per the complaint petition before the State Commission the complainant acquired a MBBS degree in 1992 and diploma in medical radio and diagnostics (DMRD) in 1997. Thereafter, in 1999 he established a diagnostic center at Tirupati in 1999. According to the complaint petition, the purpose of establishing the center was to “eke out my livelihood under self-employment”. He started with an ultrasound scanning machine, costing about Rs.16 lakhs, in 2003. When this equipment started developing frequent problems, the respondents offered to buy it back and supplied the latest ultrasound scanner system i.e. the system in dispute, called Volusion 730 PRO BT03 for Rs. 37 lakhs. Under this arrangement, the older scanner was to be bought back for Rs.12 lakhs. The new equipment was installed on 14.5.2004. To finance this purchase, the complainant took a loan of Rs.31.45 lakhs from M/s Wipro G.E. Capital Service Ltd, repayable in 12 EMIs of Rs. 50,000/- and 60 EMIs of Rs. 61,512/-.

6. Unfortunately, operational problems with the new equipment started on 2.6.2004 itself. As the problems continued to recur, the Complainant asked for extension of the warranty. On 8.9.2005, it was extended till 29.11.2005. Thereafter, on 8.4.2006, the complainant sought replacement of this scanner.

7. On the other hand, the case of the respondent/OP was that as and when complaints came, they were attended to and defects rectified. The machine needed an Annual Maintenance Contract, which the complainant was not willing to sign.

8. The State Commission has examined the question whether this purchase was for