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
KULDIP SINGH KALRA & ANR.—Appellants
versus
ROSHAN LAL PAL & ANR.—Respondent
Revision Petition No. 64 of 1992—Decided on 7.12.1992
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: In person.
A defect in title to property does not constitute defective goods under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Defective Goods - The court discussed the definition of 'defect' under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act and concluded that a defect in title to property does not affect the quality or purity of the goods, and therefore, the sale of stolen property does not constitute defective goods under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a second-hand car, which was later found to be stolen. He filed a complaint against the seller under the Consumer Protection Act, claiming that the sale of stolen property constituted defective goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a defect in title to property does not fall under the definition of 'defect' as per the Consumer Protection Act, and therefore, the petitioner's claim was devoid of merit.
Issues: Whether the sale of stolen property constitutes defective goods under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of 'defect' under the Consumer Protection Act and concluded that a defect in title to property does not affect the quality or purity of the goods, and thus does not constitute defective goods.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merit.
Mr. Y. Krishan, Member—This is the revision petition filed by Shri Kuldip Singh Kalra, who was the respondent before the State Commission against the order of 21st October, 1991 of the State Commission, Bihar in Appeal No. 22 of 1991. The revision petitioner herein was the complainant before the District Forum and, as already mentioned, respondent before the State Commission.
2. The revision petitioner complainant had purchased a second-hand Maruti Car on the 5th September,1988 from the Respondent Shri Roshan Lai Pal for a sum of Rs. 54,000/- at Patna. As the car was said to be giving trouble and could not be repaired, the revision petitioner returned the car to the opposite party against the refund of amount of Rs. 53,000/. The refund was, however, agreed to be adjusted against the price of Rs. 77,000/of another second-hand Maruti Car purchased by the revision petitioner from the same opposite party on 26th September, 1988 by paying the balance of Rs. 25,000/- in cash. The second car purchased on 26th September, 1988 was, however, seized by the Police at Gaya on the allegation that it was a stolen car. A police case regarding the theft and recovery of the car is said to be pending against the revision petitioner complainant and the seller of car at Dinapur. The revision petitioner complainant has also filed a case against the opposite party Mr. Pal under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. Both the cases are reported to be pending.
3. As there was no error of jurisdiction or illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the consumer forum in this case, we were not inclined to entertain the revision petition. However on the 18th of August, 1992, when the petition came up for hearing, on the plea of the counsel for the revision petitioner it was admitted on the limited question whether sale of stolen of property viz. property in which the seller did not have proper title, would constitute a defective goods as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sale of property by a party in which he does not have title and therefore, is incapable of selling or transferring it would constitute sale of defective goods.
4. At the today’s hearing the counsel for the revision petitioner invited attention to Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act which defines the term “defect”. It means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. He further submitted that according to the Lexi can Webster the term purity, inter alia means “freedom for anything underhand or improper”. According to him, as the vehicle sold was stolen property it was vitiated by being “improper or underhand goods” and hence the stolen car sold was a defective goods.
5. The opposite party appeared in person. He submitted that he was only a middleman who brought together the buyers and sellers of cars and received his commission for the service rendered. He is neither the buyer nor the seller of the property and it is not his function or responsibility to verify the title of the seller in the property. That is left to the buyer to verify and satisfy himself that the seller has the title and consequently the capacity to transfer and sell a particular property. The counsel for the revision petitioner could not explain how the opposite party, viz. Mr. Roshan Lal Pal could be arraigned in this case. He cannot be deemed to be trader as specified in Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act.
6. The opposite party also pointed out that there is no police case pending against him and there is-only a private criminal complaint under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC which has been lodged against him by the revision petitioner. The case is still pending. The counsel for the revision peti
