DR. D.J. DE SOUZA versus MANAGING DIRECTOR CPC DIAGNOSTICS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 378 · Decided: 01-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
DR. D.J. DE SOUZA
v.
MANAGING DIRECTOR CPC DIAGNOSTICS PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3351-3352 of 2019)
APRIL  01, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
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 on-
board 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.
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 378
 378
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
379
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.3351-
3352 of 2019
From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2017 and
04.10.2018 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission,
New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2219 of 2016 and RA No.295 of
2018 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.
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeals is to a judgment and order
passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 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 conditions:
“1. Pre-installation
Customer has to
                Requisite
provide the following:
Efficiently air-conditioned room
1 KVA online UPS for
             running of the equipment.
Broadband connection for
            “i-track”(Remote
diagnostics 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 service
engineer pointed out that 1000 mv/650 Watt UPS of APC Company
DR. D.J. DE SOUZA  v. MANAGING DIRECTOR CPC
DIAGNOSTICS PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
380
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
was not suitable and the appellant was advised to purchase 1KVA Online
UPS for usage during power failure. The stand of the appellant is that
he has got a confirmation from M/s. Awareness Technologies USA, the
manufacturer of the equipment that UPS which the appellant had is
suitable but the respondent insisted on installation of 1KVA Online UPS.
The appellant also raised a grievance that there is no on-board laundry
facility present on the instrument, therefore, such instrument is of no use
to him. Therefore, the appellant sought payment of Rs. 3, 50, 000/- along
with 9 per cent interest as well as damages of Rs. 50, 000/-.
5. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Goa
at Margao2 dismissed the complaint interalia on the ground that the
appellant has not placed copy of the order in support of his plea that on-
board laundry was a part of the equipment. Since, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.