The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District, in its Award No. F05-15092/2020 of 06.10.2020 No. F05-15092/2020 rejected the state customer's claim to provide a registration certificate of a medical device for the delivered car and mammography device.
The subject of the contract was the delivery of a medical service van equipped with a medical device – an X-ray mammography device.
As noted by the courts, the medical van and the X-ray mammography device are separate objects, used separately from each other and have different purposes. However, the customer argued that the specified product forms a single whole, assuming general use and one complex medical device.
In accordance with the contract the supplier presents the vehicle passport to the customer; copies of registration certificates for medical equipment included in the delivery of goods; technical and (or) operational documentation.
At the same time, according to the delivery act, signed by the parties, presented in the case materials, the supplier delivered, and the customer accepted the goods according to the specification on the consignment note.
When considering the dispute, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the materials of the case did not prove the circumstances of improper performance by the supplier of the obligations assumed under the disputable state contract.
Also, the courts established that when signing the acceptance certificate, the supplier handed over to the customer the following documents: consignment note; vehicle passport; supplier guarantee; copy of the document of conformity – type approval of the vehicle; other documents stipulated by the contract (registration certificate for a medical device – X-ray mammography device MR “Diamant”, operational documentation – passport and/or operation manual and technical certificates), which meets the requirements of the contract.
In addition, under the terms of the contract, if the supplier did not provide any documentation, the state customer could have made an appropriate mark when signing the act of delivery, or they could have declared a refusal to accept the goods in the absence of accompanying documentation. However, such a mark was not made by the customer when accepting the delivery, the customer did not refuse to accept the delivery. At the date of receipt the customer recognized its full compliance with the requirements of the contract, and the documents presented in relation to the devices delivered under the contract were sufficient for the state customer.
Also, the court drew attention to the fact that the claim was presented by the customer only after the expiration of the warranty period 1 year after the acceptance of the goods without comment.
Moreover, the appellate instance rejected the customer's petition to conduct a commodity examination, in view of the fact that the said petition was not filed during the proceedings in the court of first instance. The cassation court considered this deviation to be justified.
We believe that the judgment rendered further emphasizes the importance of careful attention to the acceptance of the supplied goods, as well as the timeliness of the submission of relevant claims, since the actual acceptance of the goods and its operation by the customer additionally testified to the supplier's proper performance of its obligations.