IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because defects noted down many times, it cannot be inferred that purchased instrument having manufacturing defect.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.11.2012 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 856 of 2007, M/s. Transasia Bio-Medicals Ltd. v. Deepak Kumar Jindal by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent proprietor of M/s. Deep Clinical Laboratory & ECG Centre, was running his laboratory for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment by assistance of his father and younger brother purchased Random Access Auto Analyzer from OP No.1/petitioner vide invoice dated 7.3.2005 for a sum of Rs.3,75,000 and OP installed aforesaid instrument on 2.4.2005. From the day one, instrument started giving trouble. Functioning of instrument was defective and it was brought to the notice of OP and OP tried to rectify defects, but could not succeed. On 3.11.2005, OP replaced old defective syringe with new one and in November, 2005, again replaced defective Teflon Tip with new one; even then, instrument was not working properly and was giving erratic results and in February, 2006, Flow cell was replaced by OP; even then, trouble continued. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant does not fall within purview of consumer, as complainant was running laboratory for commercial purposes. District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction. It was further submitted that as and when defects were pointed out by complainant, they were removed/replaced with new instrument. It was further submitted that defects could be attributed to faulty electric connection, power fluctuation and improper operation and there was no manufacturing defect and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint against OP No. 1 & 2 and directed them to refund Rs.3,75,000 with Rs.10,000 as compensation and Rs.1,100 as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof that complainant was running laboratory for commercial purposes and in absence of proof of manufacturing defect in the instrument, learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5. It is admitted case of the complainant that he was running his Deep Clinical Laboratory and ECG Centre exclusively for earning livelihood by means of self-employment with assistance of his father Sh. Pawan Kumar Jindal, retried Sr. Laboratory Technologist and younger brother Sh. Vikas Kumar Jindal, who holds B.Sc. Degree (Medical) and one year Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology.

6. Order placed by complainant for purchase of equipment from OP also contains names of all three persons on letter-head of M/s. Deep Clinical Laboratory and ECG Centre. It also contains following information:

“Equipped with Latest Medical Technology *Transasia EC-5 Fully Computerised Analyser, Elisa Reader *Fully Automatic Haematology Cell counter system KX 21 *Computerised Biochemistry Analyser Start 21*Flame Photometer for Electrolytes *Sample Collection Facilities from home on prior appointment”.

He purchased fully automated biochemistry batch analyser Erba Smartlab from OP meaning thereby, he was possessing before purchase of alleged Analyzer five instruments for his labo