ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. In this complaint, the complainants seek direction to the opposite parties to take back defective Tomoscan EG CT scanner and pay total amount of Rs. 1,95,34,000/-. Break up of the amount has been given in para 2 (XXXXIX) as under:-
1. Cost of Tomoscan EG CT Scanner Rs. 90 lakhs
2. Annual Maintenance cost paid Rs. 21 lakhs
3. (SIC)
9.12.2001) for 9 months (270 days) Rs. 54 lakhs
4. Loss of market reputations (the patient could not
avail service of CT scanner from outside) Rs. 10 lakhs
5. Mental agony & harassment Rs. 2 lakh
6. Professional loss for non admission of the patients
in ICU/(SIC) Rs. 10 lakhs
7. Travelling expenses to Mumbai and Kolkata Rs. 40,000/-
8. Telephone, fax, email, courier etc. Rs. 30,000/-
9. Salary paid to radiologist and technician during
breakdown of the machine Rs. 1,15,000/-
10. Electricity including maintenance of A/c etc. Rs. 99,000/-
11. Bank interest paid Rs. 5,50,000/-.
2. In short, it is alleged that an agreement for sale was signed between the complainants and opposite party No. 1 on 24.3.1998. Price of CT Scanner was settled at Rs. 93 lakhs and payment of that amount was to be made as per the mode contained in the letter dated 16.4.1998. Opposite party No. 1 installed the scanner on 1.4.1998. There had been breakdown in the machine on several occasions. In compliance of the letter dated 19.8.1989, opposite party No. 1 installed another Tomoscan EG C.T. Scanner being model No. MCT3-903 on 1.9.1999. At the time of replacement, the opposite party No. 1 refused to extend any warranty for this second scanner. It is further alleged that the machine of replaced scanner was also defective and there had been request breakdowns thereof. Thus, the complainants were compelled to purchase another C.T. scanner from Wipro Co. being model No. SITECH 1800 incurring huge financial loss and taking burden of huge loan amount with higher rate of interest. Despite repeated requests, opposite party No. 1-company has failed to take possession of the defective C.T. Scanner. Claiming aforementioned reliefs, the complainants have filed this complaint against the opposite parties.
3. We have heard Shri (SIC)
4. In Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the Supreme Court held that costs of purchase of goods for consumption of use (SIC) manufacture of goods or commodities on a large scale with a view to make profit will fall outside the scope of the definition of ‘Consumer’. Considering the allegations made on complaint, amendment made in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) w.e.f. 15.3.2003 and ratio in Laxmi Engineering Works case (supra), the complainants are not the consumers and the complaint deserves to (SIC)on that sole (SIC). However, the complainant choose to file suit for the reliefs claimed they can claim benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting this complaint while computing period of limitation prescribed for such a suit in view of Laxmi Engineering Works’ case (supra).