MANGAL RAM vs NATIONAL MOTORS

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. "

IT was recorded that order containing reasons will follow later on. Now, we proceed to set out the reasons.

The complainants have filed this complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" hereinafter) on 25.7.89.

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. 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".

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. We heard the arguments on the question regarding maintainability of the complaint on 9.1.90 and pronounced the order on 29.1.90 as aforesaid. "Complaint", "complainant", "consumer", "consumer dispute", "deficiency", "service", "trader" and "unfair trade practice" have been defined in Sec. 2(1) of the Act. We have carefully considered these definitions. Sec. 14 of the Act deals with finding of the District Forum which is applicable to the State Commission by virtue of Sec. 18 of the Act.

THE complaint relates to a dispute that has basically to be settled by a Civil Court having regard to the nature of the contentions taken by the opposite-parties. This is not a case which legitimately calls for the grant of any relief by the State Commission. THE grievance of the complainants pertain to the alleged failure of opposite-party No. 1 to supply the tractor. THEre are allegations that all the three opposite-parties have jointly caused loss to him. Compensation has been claimed as detailed in paras 3, 4 and 5. Opposite-party No. 3 is banker of the complainants and it has alleged that an objection was raised by some persons that land which has been mortgaged as security for loan does not belong to the complainants and a fraud has been perpetrated upon the Bank. It has also pleaded that a suit has been instituted in respect of that land in the Court of A. C. M. Court, Chomu and order for status quo has been passed at the instance of Bhagirath. Hanuman, Mangu and Virthoo. Having carefully read the complaint and the documents accompanying it, separate versions of the case filed by the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3, and the reliefs claimed by the complainants, we are of considered opinion that the complainants should approach a Civil Court for appropriate redress. We do not consider it appropriate to go into the merits of this case. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to record a finding whether opposite-party has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party to the complaint as there is no cause of action against it.

WITHOUT prejudice to his right to resort to any such remedy, the complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs. Complaint dismissed.