Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President;
Mr. Y. Krishan, Member, Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Member
AKHIL BHARTIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT & ANR.—Complainants
versus
SIMPSON & CO. LTD. & ORS.—Opp. Parties
Original Petition No. 66 of 1991—Decided on 11.5.1993
For the Complainants :Mr. S.K. Mehta, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party No. 1 :Mr. Rama Subrahmaniam, Senior Adv. and Ms. Prerana, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party No. 2 : NEMO.
For the Opp. Party No. 3 :Mr. M.N. Tandon and Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocates.
The limitation period for filing a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act begins when the cause of action accrues, which is typically when the consumer purchases the defective product or service.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION - DEFECTIVE VEHICLES - LIMITATION - PURCHASE OF VEHICLES BETWEEN 1983 AND 1986 - COMPLAINT FILED IN 1991 - HELD: COMPLAINT BARRED BY LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
Complainants, a voluntary consumer organization and an association of vehicle owners, alleged that they were misled by advertisements and handbills issued by the company and dealer to purchase defective Ford vehicles. They claimed that the vehicles had frequent breakdowns, manufacturing defects, and a lack of spare parts. The company and dealer denied the allegations, asserting that the vehicles were of good quality and that the defects were due to misuse by the complainants. The bank, which had provided financing for the vehicles, stated that it had extended concessions to the complainants to help them repay their loans.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was barred by limitation. It held that the cause of action accrued to the complainants when they purchased the vehicles between 1983 and 1986, and that the complaint filed in 1991 was beyond the three-year limitation period. The court also found that there was no evidence to show that the vehicles were defective or that the company and dealer had failed to provide maintenance services.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint was filed within the limitation period? 2. Whether the vehicles were defective?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applied the principles of the Limitation Act to the complaint, even though the Act itself does not specify a limitation period. It held that the cause of action accrued to the complainants when they purchased the vehicles, and that the complaint filed in 1991 was beyond the three-year limitation period. 2. The court found that there was no evidence to show that the vehicles were defective. It noted that the complainants had not produced any expert evidence to support their allegations, and that the vehicles had been used for several years without any major problems.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.
Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Member—Complainant No. 1 is a Voluntary Consumer Organisation while Complainant No. 2 is an Association registered with the Registrar of Factories, Members of the Association (hereinafter referred to as Members) are the purchasers/- owners of Ford vehicles manufactured by Opposite Party No. 1 Simpson & Co. Ltd (for short the Company). The Company has its Head Office in Anna Salai, Madras and is engaged in the manufacture of the above mentioned vehicles and their spare parts. Opposite Party No. 2 is the Dealer appointed by the Company for the sale of vehicles manufactured by it in the territory of Goa. Opposite Party No. 3 is Central Bank of India ( for short the Bank).
2. According to the allegations contained in the complaint, in 1983 there appeared an advertisement, in the local newspapers published at Panaji, Goa issued by Opposite Party No. 2 on behalf of the Company. The said advertisement appealed to the public to purchase trucks manufactured by the company with easily available finance offered by the Bank with initial investment of Rs. 36,000/- only from the purchaser. The said advertisement also emphasised various characteristics of the said trucks. The brand of the truck as per the advertisement issued was ‘Ford’ and the advertisement used the insignia of ‘Ford’ Attracted by the scheme and the features of the truck, brought out in the advertisement, the Members visited the show-room of the Dealer at Vasco de Gama. The Members were informed that apart from the Tipper trucks, Ford Super Truck Chassis meant for transportation of goods or passengers were also available under the above mentioned scheme which was promoted by the Company in collaboration with the Bank. The Members were given pamphlets and brochures indicating that the said vehicles by the Company were superior to other goods vehicles, with respect to mileage, load bearing capacity, fuel consumption and merchantability in general. However, as the costs of the said trucks was found to be higher than the trucks of similar type like Tata and Ashok Leyland available in the market, the Members gave up the idea of purchasing the said vehicle manufactured by the Company.
3. The Officers of the Company, thereafter started approaching each of the members to purchase the said truck by taking benefit of the finance offered by the Bank. The following services were promised by the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 :
(a) Free after sales service for warranty period of one year;
(b) free replacement of defective parts within a period of one year;
(c) efficient after sale service beyond warranty period;
(d) easy availability of spare parts.
It was represented by the Officers of the Opposite Party No. 2 that although the cost of the vehicles was higher than that of other manufacturers, the said vehicles were far superior in all respects compared to the other vehicles. The Members were represented that the vehicles were high roadworthy as the Company was having collaboration with the Ford Company of England, a leading Manufacturer of trucks. It was also represented that the vehicle had undergone successful and extensive trials. The Dealer presented hand bill to the Complainants giving the said features of the truck. The Dealer also represented that they being the agent of the Company were having a fully equipped and sophisticated workshop at Ponda and would have all the spare parts of the said vehicles readily available, Each of the Members was also informed that a deal had been struck by the Head Office of the Bank with the Company to promote the sale of the trucks manufactured by the Company by virtue of which the Bank would offer loans at lower interest at the rate, of twelve and half percent with low margine money of twelve and half percent and long repayment period of six years for the purchase of the said vehicles. The Members were also assured that they would not feel the excess cost of the said trucks as the initial investment would be only Rs. 35,000/-
