KRISHI MACHINERIES vs RANA SINGH

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 4th July, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Aurangabad in Complaint Case No. 9 of 1992. The appellant here was the O.P. before the District Forum and respondent was complainant there.

THE complainant filed this complaint petition before the District Forum on 27.2.92 alleging that he purchased Tractor Mahendra B275 from the opposite party on 4.7.87 but the opposite party did not give to him the sale letter and registration book as a result of which he is not able to use the tractor which has caused financial loss to him and he has claimed Rs. 60,000/- as compensation for that loss. Notice was issued with the O.P. and counter version was filed on his behalf asserting inter-alia that the complaint is barred by limitation; that at the time of sale all necessary papers including the sale letter was handed over to the complainant on 12.7.87 and in respect thereof he signed on the paper maintained by the O.P. and that the complainant ought to have get his tractor registered within a month of its delivery to him.

The complainant examined himself in support of his case and Sri D.N. Ambastha was examined on behalf of the O.P. who claims to be the Accountant of the O.P. Some photostat copies of sale letter was filed on behalf of O.P. in support of counter version, which purports to bear the signature of the complainant.

THE District Forum disposed off the case directing the O.P. to deliver a duplicate of the sale letter to the complainant within the period of fifteen days and also directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 8,000/- within the same period and also held that if he failed to comply with the order within that period, penalty under Section 27 of the Act will be imposed. At the outset it may be mentioned that there is dispute among the party regarding the basic facts of the case which requires elaborate evidence which cannot be done under this Act.

MOREOVER, the tractor was purchased by the complainant in July, 1987 and the complainant filed the case for the redressal of his stale cause before the District Forum on 27.2.92. As held by the National Commission in Consumer Education Research Society and Another v. Life Insurance Corporation of India I (1993) CPJ 128 (NC) it will not be conducive to public policy and public good to have stale claims brought up for adjustification after lapse of long periods of time depriving the public of the sense of security. Hence the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained. We accordingly allow this appeal, and set aside the impugned order There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. ______________