AMARJIT SINGH M B B S Vs. M P UNI MAGNA TECH LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the complainant Dr. Amarjit Singh, challenging order of District Forum, Jalandhar dated September 13, 1996 dismissing the complaint holding that the question involved was not a consumer dispute as the complainant intended to purchase the machinery for commercial purposes.

(2.) On November 24,1990, the complainant was approached by opposite party No.5, a representative of opposite party No.1, the supplier of Ultra Sound Machines. The total price of the machinery was stated to be Rs.1,94,000/- with price of the stabilizer Rs.3,000/-. The complainant is alleged to have handed over a Bank Draft of Rs.20.000/- to the representative on February 9,1991. In the Invoice issued by opposite party No.1 the delivery was to be effected within 4/6 months. In the meantime, the complainant secured loan to the tune of Rs.1,74,000/- in March, 1991 for purchase of the Machine. On May 17,1991, the complainant was approached by the opposite party that the price of the machine had increased to Rs.2,20,000/-. This was done by issuing a fresh Invoice wherein period of delivery was stated to be three months and the complainant was asked to deposit more amount. The complainant accepted the offer and remitted more amount. On August 24,1991, the complainant was informed mat the price has further been increased to Rs.2,80,000/- to which the complainant protested and ultimately approached the District Forum with the direction to the opposite party to deliver the machine at the old price and to compensate the complainant for the delay in non-supply of the machine as the complainant had suffered loss in his business. The opposite party submitted its version admitting the facts as stated above but denying their liability to pay the damages. It was asserted that the complainant was not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act as the machine was sought to be purchased for his business purposes. The complainant himself had mentioned in the complaint that he intended to purchase the machine for his business and the delay in supply of the machine had caused him loss in the business. It was in the rejoinder filed that the complainant took up the plea that he wanted the machine for his own use.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the machine was for his own use. In support of his contention he has referred to the decision of the National Commission in "rampion Pharmaceuticals V/s. Dr. Preetam Shah., 1997 1 CPJ 23 wherein it was observed that where the Doctor was running a Hospital and purchased Ultrasonic Pachymeter, it will not fall in the category of commercial nature as the machine was required for self-employment in that Hospital. As far as this contention is concerned, there is merit. The District Forum ignored the assertion made by the complainant in the rejoinder that the machine was purchased for personal use of the Doctor. If the District Forum had not allowed the rejoinder to be taken on the record, the position may have been different. But once it was allowed, the assertion made therein cannot be ignored. The pleadings are to be read as a whole in order to determine such questions on the basis of which competency of the Fora to entertain the complaint depends. An isolated physiology used in one of the paragraphs such as the complainant would suffer loss in his business for want of the machine is not enough to hold that it was a business transaction for which the Doctor wanted to have Ultra Sound Machine for his Hospital, which was run by him for self-employment.