Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Honble Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President;
Mr. Damodar Thanvi, Member; Mrs. Saria Khan, Member
MANGAL RAM––Appellant
versus
NATIONAL MOTORS & OTHERS––Respondent
Complaint Case No. 42 of 1989—Decided on 29.1.1990
Disputes relating to failure to supply goods or services and claims for compensation fall within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and not the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - MAINTAINABILITY OF COMPLAINT - SECTIONS 2(1), 14, 18 - DISPUTE RELATING TO FAILURE TO SUPPLY TRACTOR - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION - COMPLAINT DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Complainants, agriculturists, applied for a loan to purchase a tractor from opposite-party No. 3, who informed opposite-party No. 1 about the loan sanction. Complainants deposited Rs. 64,000/- as margin money and a demand draft for Rs. 1,12,030.75 for the tractor, but it was not supplied. They claimed compensation for loss of crops, mental agony, and interest.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that the dispute related to the alleged failure to supply the tractor and compensation claimed, which should be settled by a Civil Court. It found that the complaint did not legitimately call for relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint falls within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the State Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definitions of "complaint", "complainant", "consumer", "consumer dispute", "deficiency", "service", "trader", and "unfair trade practice" under Section 2(1) of the Act were considered. 2. The nature of the contentions taken by the opposite-parties indicated that the dispute should be settled by a Civil Court. 3. The grievance of the complainants pertained to the alleged failure to supply the tractor, which was not a matter for relief under the Act.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
S.K.M. Lodha, President—The following order was pronounced on 29.1.90 :
"Without prejudice to his right to resort to any such remedy, the complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs. "
2. It was recorded that order containing reasons will follow later on.
3. Now, we proceed to set out the reasons.
4. The complainants have filed this complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" hereinafter) on 25.7.89.
5. It is alleged that the complainants are agriculturists and own agriculture land measuring 44 Bighas in village Nangal Koju. They applied for loan to opposite-party No. 3 for the purchase of a Fergusson Tractor. The application was accepted and opposite- party No. 3 informed opposite-party No. 1 about the sanction of the loan. Opposite party No. 1 assured that the tractor will be supplied soon and so they should deposit margin money. On 28.7.88, the complainants instead of 25% amounting to Rs. 29,750/- deposited Rs. 64,000/-. This was done under the pressure of opposite-party No. 3. On 24.10.88, a demand draft in the name of opposite-party no. 1 for Rs. 1,12,030.75 was deposited in its account for tractor. The tractor was not supplied and on account of this, the complainants could not cultivate their land for two kharif crops. They have claimed Rs. 88,000/- as compensation in this regard. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been claimed on account of mental agony. To quote from para 4 of the complaint."
"ISLIA PRARTHI KO ATYADHIK HANI AVAM APMAN KA SAMNA KARNA PARA THATHA GAO MAI SAKH SAMAPT HO GAI ES KARRAN PRARTHI APNI MANSIK SANTAP KE LIA."
An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was claimed on account of loss of interest and other loss. It was also stated in the complaint that opposite-party No. 1 is liable to pay interest on the amount borrowed from the Bank for the non-supply of the tractor by it. An allegation has been made that opposite-party No. 1 is making wrongful a gain by using the money of the complainants which is with opposite-party No. 3. In para 8 of the complaint, the complainant have stated though tractor has neither been supplied nor any bill issued nor any steps for its registration were taken, still opposite-party No. 2 has issued insurance cover note. According to the complainants all the three opposite-parties are jointly causing loss to them. The complainants have prayed (1) that a tractor may be made available to the complainants at the prevailing price on 25.10.88; (2) that compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,18,000/- as detailed in paras 3, 4 and 5 of the complaint may be ordered to be paid, and (3) that the amount of interest deducted by the Bank may be ordered to be paid by the opposite-party No. 1 and upto the date of decision of the complaint, interest on account of loss may also be awarded. The complaint was accompanied by some documents.
6. Opposite-parties No. 1, 2, and 3 filed separate versions of the case resisting the complaint on various grounds. It was pleaded by opposite-party No. 1 that tractors supplied at the price prevailing on the date of delivery according to turn. It was submitted that opposite-party No. 3 sent a letter on 31.3.89 informing it that there is a dispute in regard to the agriculture land of the complainants which is not going to be settled soon and so draft sent by the Bank may be returned to it. It is said that amount has been returned and so there is no question of supplying the tractor. Opposite-party No. 2, amongst others, raised a plea that it has unnecessarily been impleaded as a party to the complainant as there is no cause of action against it. Opposite-party No. 3 raised an objection about the maintainability of the complaint under the Act on the grounds mentioned under the head "Preliminary Objections".
7. It was recorded on 28.9.89 that the question raised on behalf of opposite-party No. 2 may simultaneously be considered with the preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint.
8. We heard the arguments on the qu
