KESAR SINGH GANDHI vs SIMPSON And CO. LTD

IN the year 1980 on having gone through an Advertisment that the New Brand Truck was being introduced, the complainant booked one for his use. He got it booked through respondent No. 2 who was appointed dealer for such vehicles, in Jammu. The induction of the vehicle was followed by wide publicity in Press advertisements and brouchers wherein it was reported interalia that new truck would give excellent performance and was far superior than the trucks existing in the market. It was also widely published that after purchase the efficient and excellent service will be provided by the respondents. It has been alleged that this was a false representation and the guarantee and performance too were mis-leading promises on which the complainant relied and went for the purchase of one of the vehicles. It was found that the trucks were inordinately accident prone due to manufacturing defect and many of the truck had met with frequent accidents during operations. The assurance by the respondents that spare parts will be available in the market was also found to be false as the complainant was told by the dealer that the respondent company was not maintaining and supplies of essential spare parts necessary for the operation of the trucks.

AT the time of the purchase of this Ford Tractor, the complainant has alleged to have invested an amount of Rs. 61,175/- while the bank respondent No. 3 invested an amount of Rs. 1,93,375/- . The complainant has paid Rs. 2,76,938.85 upto December 1990 to respondent No. 3 and has alleged that he suffered a loss of Rs. 1,44,779/-. According to the complainant he has been made subject of an unfair trade practice, mis-representation and has therefore, suffered financially and mentally. He has demanded an order to be passed in his favour for an amount of Rs. 338,154.37 and has further asked for interest on the amount and a good amount as compensation for inconvenience and agony. The respondents 2 & 3 were summoned in the first instance and were asked to file objections regarding the complaint. Both the respondents appeared and filed objections. Both respondents stated that the complaint was vague in nature and has not disclosed any cause of action and therefore, merits out-right rejection. It was also submitted that the matter referred to was that of 1980 and the complaint now lodged was hopelessly delayed. It was also alleged that the complaint would not be under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as the same did not disclose any grievance which would entitle the complainant to file the complaint. The whole complaint was of a general type.

The Jammu and Kashmir Bank (respondent No. 3) through its Counsel in its objections filed on 14.1.1992 have averred that the complaint was not entertainable by this Commission. It has been stated further that no transaction of goods as defined under the Goods Act has taken place and as such respondent No. 3 was not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. Further it has been stated that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the complaint against the bank. The complaint has been filed to adversely affect the interests of the bank indirectly by way of starting a false and mischievous litigation in which a concocted story has been cooked up by the complainant so as to stall the proceedings to be started against him by the Bank for the recovery of the amount as well as the interest etc. The bank had given the amount on loan to the complainant and at an agreed rate of interest and as such it was alleged by the Bank that there was no justification in the claim of the complainant that he has already paid more than the amount he had taken from the bank through interest. The Bank (respondent No. 3) has therefore claimed that it was entitled to recovery of the money advanced by it to the complainant irrespective of what transpired between the complainant and other respondents.

THE other respondent i.e. Simpson and Co. have also filed their objections. The complaint has a sort of a chequerred history. It has several times been dismissed in default or has been kept in waiting for further necessary actions several times as the parties have very often remained absent from the Commission. However, arguments now have been heard and the record of the case has been gone into. No evidence has been produced by either of the parties. It was a fact that the complaint fails to disclose particulars of the purchase of the vehicle i.e. the date to the purchase, the price, the performance etc. The complainant is silent also on the loss or damage suffered by him. All the particulars have not been supplied. The vehicle was undoubtedly purchase for commercial purpose. The complainant admittedly is a truck operator and operates the same for business. The complainant has stated that the purchase of the vehicle was made in 1980. The civil suit if filed by the complaint on the same facts would be hopelessly barred by limitation. The stale claims and such claims which are barred by limitation are not to be entertained and enquired into by any Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. The respondent Simpson and Co. have submitted that there was no claim made by the complainant against it and therefore it had been unnecessarily impleaded as a party. The respondent No. 3 (Jammu & Kashmir Bank) has categorically stated that they had nothing to do with the story of the vehicle and defects developed if at all afterwards and were only concerned with the recovery of the amount paid to the complainant on loan and in that case were quite justified to seize and sell the vehicle.

HAVING considered the arguments of the parties and having perused the complaint and the objections we are of the view that the complaint deserves to be rejected on a number of grounds such as its failure to disclose cause of action, the failure to give out details regarding the purchase of the vehicle, further the transaction being one for the commercial purposes would be enough grounds, for the dismissal of the complaint. The limitation point also goes against the complainant. A matter that has arisen in 1980 is being made subject matter of the dispute in 1993. The complaint has been purposely left vague wherein general types of charges against the type of the vehicle have been levelled. The disposal of the complaint has been delayed so far and so long with a definite purposes of denying the bank to recover the money advanced by it to which the bank was definitely entitled to. On consideration of all aspects of the matter, the complaint is hereby dismissed. The Stay Order issued stopping the Jammu and Kashmir Bank from seizing the vehicle in question is hereby withdrawn. The complainant is held to be responsible to the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. for the amount taken by him as loan from it plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of this complaint upto the date of the realization of the total amount including interest. It is our considered view that the petitioner has filed this complaint with ulterior motives in view has and failed to give all particulars and has deliberately stalled the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. from realizing the money it had given on loan to him. The complaint filed is found to be vexatious and therefore the complainant deserves to be penalized for the same. We, accordingly, direct that the complainant shall pay to all the three respondents an amount of Rs. 5000/- each as the costs for filing such a frivolous complaint. Copy of this judgment be given to the respondents as well as complainant within 10 days from today as the office is feeling short of regular Steno-cum-Typist. Complaint dismissed with costs.