The ruling was given in connection with a complaint filed by Dr Ramesh Shah, a pathologist who runs Anviksha Pathology Laboratory and Blood Bank at Ghatkopar. Dr Shah had entered into a contract with Ark Diagnostics Pvt Ltd, Andheri, and its director for purchase of imported fully automated True Random Access Analyser. The opposite parties had given him a warranty for manufacturing defects.

The machine was delivered in February 1997 and found defective from the day it was installed in Dr Shah's laboratory. The doctor felt the problems posed by the machine were initial ones which would be sorted out soon. But the defects weren't cured even after the opposite parties examined the machine, and in May '97, the machine stopped functioning.

Dr Shah wrote letters to both dealers and the Italy-based manufacturers, and in a letter dated June 11, the opposition parties said the manufacturers had been approached by them for solving the problems. They also said they were willing to take the machine to their service centre for repairs.

The machine was taken to the service centre on July 22, and Dr Shah was assured it would be repaired in 20 days. But the repair work was not done in time and more time was sought.

In a letter dated August 8, for the first time, the opposite parties alleged Dr Shah had mishandled the machine. The machine wasn't returned till Shah filed the complaint on September 18. Shah, represented by Jehangir Gai, said the opposite parties later claimed they had repaired the machine and were ready to reinstall it. But the complainant contended he should instead be refunded the entire amount and compensated for loss of business during the above period.

The opposite parties, represented by B P Israni, contended the deal was commercial, and the state commission had no jurisdiction to try such a dispute. They alleged the defect arose due to mishandling, so refund was out of question. Their offer to replace the machine was refused by Shah, the dealer said.

President of the state commission, Justice A A Halbe, quoted a national commission-tried case, in which it had been observed that when defects occurred during period of warranty, the question of the transaction being commercial didn't bar jurisdiction of the Redressal Forum. As this too is a case of defective service during period of warranty, the claim can be entertained, the commission observed.

``The persistent failure of the machine, which from the day of installation gave incorrect readings of pathological tests, is a strong circumstance for us to hold that there were manufacturing defects which couldn't be cured inspite of the dealer's efforts,'' the commission noted.

The Commission directed the dealer to refund the price (Rs 6,50,000), Rs 50,000 by way of compensation and Rs 5,000 by way of cost to the complainant within two months from the date of the order.