Dr. D.J. De Souza vs Managing Director Cpc Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

1 April 2019

Case No.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3351-3352 of 2019

Result

Dismissed

Bench

D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta

Citation

[2019] 6 S.C.R. 378 : 2019 INSC 445

Headnote

Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Deficiency in service – Appellant placed an order for purchase of TurboChem 100 Unit from respondent – On delivery, the service engineer pointed out that 1000 mv/650 Watt UPS was not suitable and advised appellant to purchase 1KVA Online UPS for usage during power failure – Stand of appellant was that he got a confirmation from the manufacturer of the equipment that UPS which the appellant had was suitable – However, respondent insisted on installation of 1 KVA Online UPS – Appellant also raised grievance that there was no on-board laundry facility present on the instrument and, therefore, such instrument was of no use to him – Complaint before Consumer Forum by appellant claiming the purchase amount and damages of Rs.50,000 – Held: The pre-installation requisite clearly stipulated that the appellant had to provide efficiently air-conditioned room, 1KVA Online UPS for running of the equipment and broadband connection for “i-track” (Remote Diagnostics Tool) – In the brochure supplied to the appellant, there was no commitment of supply of instrument with on-board laundry facility – Thus, the onboard laundry facility was never committed to be delivered to the appellant along with the instrument nor there could be any installation of the equipment without installation of 1KVA Online UPS being part of pre-installation requirements – The e-mail from the manufacturer would not override the pre-conditions of installation which were in view of electricity supply conditions in the country – All the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act correctly found that there was no deficiency in service or restrictive trade practice – No interference with the orders passed by Forums called for – Appeals dismissed.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The challenge in the present appeals is to a judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 1 on 14.12.2017 and also an order in Review Petition passed on 04.10.2018. 3. The appellant placed an order for purchase of TurboChem 100 Unit in response to quotation submitted by the respondent in the second week of August 2015. The appellant remitted a sum of Rs. 3, 50, 000/towards 50 per cent cost of the instrument. The pre-installation requisite contemplated the following condition

View Subscription Plans →