Supreme Court of India
DR. D.J. DE SOUZA versus MANAGING DIRECTOR CPC DIAGNOSTICS PVT. LTD. on 1 April 2019
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
A
DR. D.J. DE SOUZA
v.
MANAGING DIRECTOR CPC DIAGNOSTICS PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3351-3352 of 2019)
BAPRIL 01, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD ANDHEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Deficiency in service –Appellant placed an order for purchase of TurboChem 100 UnitCfrom respondent – On delivery, the service engineer pointed outthat 1000 mv/650 Watt UPS was not suitable and advised appellantto purchase 1KVA Online UPS for usage during power failure –Stand of appellant was that he got a confirmation from themanufacturer of the equipment that UPS which the appellant hadDwas suitable – However, respondent insisted on installation of 1KVA Online UPS – Appellant also raised grievance that there wasno on-board laundry facility present on the instrument and, therefore,such instrument was of no use to him – Complaint before ConsumerForum by appellant claiming the purchase amount and damages ofRs.50,000 – Held: The pre-installation requisite clearly stipulatedEthat the appellant had to provide efficiently air-conditioned room,1KVA Online UPS for running of the equipment and broadbandconnection for “i-track” (Remote Diagnostics Tool) – In thebrochure supplied to the appellant, there was no commitment ofsupply of instrument with on-board laundry facility – Thus, the on-Fboard laundry facility was never committed to be delivered to theappellant along with the instrument nor there could be anyinstallation of the equipment without installation of 1KVA OnlineUPS being part of pre-installation requirements – The e-mail fromthe manufacturer would not override the pre-conditions ofinstallation which were in view of electricity supply conditions inGthe country – All the authorities under the Consumer Protection Actcorrectly found that there was no deficiency in service or restrictivetrade practice – No interference with the orders passed by Forumscalled for – Appeals dismissed.
H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.3351-3352 of 2019
From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2017 and04.10.2018 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission,New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2219 of 2016 and RA No.295 of2018 in Revision Petition No.2219 of 2016 respectively.
Dr. D.J. De Souza, Appellant-in-person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeals is to a judgment and orderpassed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission[1] on14.12.2017 and also an order in Review Petition passed on 04.10.2018.
3. The appellant placed an order for purchase of TurboChem 100Unit in response to quotation submitted by the respondent in the secondweek of August 2015. The appellant remitted a sum of Rs. 3, 50, 000/-towards 50 per cent cost of the instrument. The pre-installation requisitecontemplated the following conditions:
“1. Pre-installation
Customer has toprovide the following:Efficiently air-conditioned room Requisite 1 KVA online UPS for running of the equipment.
Broadband connection for “i-track”(Remotediagnostics Tool)
The equipment will be
provided with “i-track”
Remote, facility at the time
of installation.”
4. The equipment was delivered on 30.09.2015. The serviceengineer pointed out that 1000 mv/650 Watt UPS of APC Company A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Awas not suitable and the appellant was advised to purchase 1KVA OnlineUPS for usage during power failure. The stand of the appellant is thathe has got a confirmation from M/s. Awareness Technologies USA, themanufacturer of the equipment that UPS which the appellant had issuitable but the respondent insisted on installation of 1KVA Online UPS.The appellant also raised a grievance that there is no on-board laundryBfacility present on the instrument, therefore, such instrument is of no useto him. Therefore, the appellant sought payment of Rs. 3, 50, 000/- alongwith 9 per cent interest as well as damages of Rs. 50, 000/-.
5. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Goaat Margao[2] dismissed the complaint interalia on the ground that theCappellant has not placed copy of the order in support of his plea that on-board laundry was a part of the equipment. Since, there was nocommitment on the part of the respondent to supply on-board laundryfacility, the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved against the order passedby the District Forum, the appellant filed an appeal before the Goa StateDConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission[3]. The said appeal wasdismissed on 08.07.2016 when his argument that the respondent hasindulged in restrictive unfair trade practice, was not accepted. It wasargued that the appellant had one 1KVA UPS purchased on 19.10.2015but the respondent insisted on installation of Online UPS. The appellantreferred to his correspondence with the manufacturer in USA that UPSEpurchased by the appellant is good provided that the instrument is theonly item hooked up to the UPS.
6. The State Commission found that the appellant placed an orderwhen the respondent communicated their best offer for Turbochem 100fully Automated Random-Access Biochemistry Analyser and alsoFenclosed brochure for reference. It is thereafter, the 50 per cent of theprice was paid. In the brochure there is mention of on-board coolingfacility as one of the features but there is no feature of on-board laundryfacility. There is a specific mention of requirement of 1 KVA OnlineUPS for running of the equipment. In view of said facts, the learnedGState Commission dismissed the appeal. The further challenge by wayof a Revision before the NCDRC remained unsuccessful. The NCDRCfound that there is no commitment from the respondent about the supplyof instrument with on-board laundry facility and that the appellant has 2 District Forum H3State Commission failed to establish that there was any malfunctioning or manufacturingdefect in the instrument.
7. It was also mentioned that the performance of the instrumentdepends upon the continuous uninterrupted electricity supply which couldbe made available through Online UPS. It was advisable to install bestquality Online UPS keeping in view the fluctuation in electricity supplyin the country.
8. Before this Court, the appellant argued that the manufacturerof the instrument in USA vide an email as Annexure P-10, hascommunicated that the UPS purchased by the appellant will be good,provided the TurboChem 100 is the only item hooked up to the UPS.Therefore, the insistence of the respondent for installation of 1KVA OnlineUPS is arbitrary and is restrictive trade practice.
9. We have heard the appellant and find no merit in the presentappeals. The pre-installation requisite as reproduced above clearlystipulates that the appellant has to provide: (i) Efficiently air-conditionedroom (ii) 1KVA Online UPS for running of the equipment (iii) Broadbandconnection for “i-track” (Remote Diagnostics Tool). The equipmentwill be provided with “i-track” remote facility at the time of installation.
10. In the brochure supplied to the appellant, there is no commitmentof supply of instrument with on-board laundry facility. Thus, the appellantcould not insist on on-board laundry facility which was never committedto be delivered to the appellant along with the instrument nor there couldbe any installation of the equipment without installation of 1KVA OnlineUPS as part of pre-installation requirements. The email from themanufacturer will not override the pre-conditions of installation whichare in view of electricity supply conditions in the country. All the authoritiesunder the Consumer Protection Act, 1986[4] have found that there is nodeficiency in service or restrictive trade practice.
11. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the orderspassed by the Forums constituted under the Act which warrantinterference in the present appeals. The present appeals are thusdismissed.
Devika Gujral
Appeals dismissed.
4Act
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H