UMAPROSANNA PUNDIT vs PUNJAB TRACTORS LIMITED

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 8.4.1997 passed by District Forum, Birbhum dismissing the case of the complainant on the ground that the case was barred by limitation.

THE backdrop of the case is that the complainant purchased a Diesel Tractor from opposite party 1 from its local dealer viz. opposite party 2 by taking loan from opposite party 4 for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-. Subsequently, the said Tractor was insured with opposite party-3. THE said Tractor was delivered to the complainant by opposite party-2 on 11.7.1990 but the said Tractor developed trouble within 15-hours of purchase and this fact was brought to the notice of the opposite party-2. Opposite party-2 made necessary arrangement for repairing the Tractor through a local mechanic. THE complainant claimed reimbursement of cost of repairing of the Tractor from opposite party-4, the Financier but the latter sent a notice dated 28.8.1994 to the complainant demanding a sum of Rs. 1,44,780/-. Consequently, the complainant approached the Forum for reliefs including payment of compensation. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their respective objections contending inter alia that the claim of the complainant was hopelessly barred by limitation.

It appears that the Forum raised as many as six issues and Issue No. 2 is on the point of limitation. The Forum decided Issue No. 2 and clearly held that the claim of the complainant was hopelessly barred by limitation, having not been filed within the statutory period of limitation. It further appears that the Forum did not consider and decided other issues on the ground that the case was barred by limitation. In that view of the matter the Forum dismissed the claim preferred by the complainant.

FEELING aggrieved by the decision of the Forum, the complainant has moved this Commission in appeal. According to the appellant, the cause of action for the claim arose on and from 28.8.1994 when the demand was made by opposite party-4 for recovery of loan from him and not from a date earlier to it. He submits that the Forum was wrong in holding that the cause of action arose in July, 1990 when the complainant found the Tractor defective. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Forum was not justified in dismissing the claim solely on the ground of limitation but it ought to have decided the other issues raised in this case before dismissing the claim. The learned Lawyer for the appellant submits that Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended), 1986 came into force on and from 18.6.1993 prospectively. Prior to 18.6.1993 there was no specific period of limitation for filing complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to him, the period of limitation in the present case would be 3 years from the date of cause of action. In support of his contention he has referred to certain decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law as is sought to be established. The main question for consideration in this case is as to when the cause of action in the present case actually arose. According to the appellant, the cause of action arose only on 28.8.1994 when a claim was made by his Financier viz. opposite party-4. This position is, however, disputed by the respondents. According to them, the cause of action accrued when the Tractor developed mechanical defects. It is not disputed that the Tractor was purchased on 25.5.1990 and delivery was effected on 11.7.1990. It has been alleged that the said Tractor developed trouble within 15 hours of its purchase. The matter was brought to the notice of opposite party-2 and the defects were removed by opposite party-2, the local agent of opposite party-1 with the help of a local mechanic. The appellant sought to realise the cost of such repair from its financier viz. opposite party-4 but the latter instead of allowing the claim demanded a sum of Rs. 1,44,780/- from the appellant. According to the appellant his cause of action arose on and from this date viz. 28,894/ - and not from any earlier date. It appears from the materials on record that the Tractor developed trouble immediately after the purchase. But the complainant did not prefer any claim for replacement or for compensation from opposite party 1. The learned Counsel for the opposite party states that at no point of time the complainant approached opposite party-1 claiming replacement or compensation for the mechanical defect said to have developed in the Tractor. The claim of the appellant for reimbursement of expenses for repairing the Tractor was also repudiated by the Insurance Company viz. opposite party-3. Opposite party 3 through their letter dated 28.1.1991 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the loss to the engine of the Tractor was not attributable to any accident. Even then the complainant did not move an inch to claim compensation from opposite party 1 or its local Agent viz. opposite party 2. He waited till 28.8.1994 when his Financier viz. opposite party 4 put forward a claim for the sum of Rs. 1,44,780/-. The learned Lawyer for the appellant contends that the date of demand by the Financier furnished the cause of action. We have considered the matter very carefully. We cannot agree to the submission made by him. As noticed earlier, the mechanical defect arose in July, 1990. The claim of the complainant for reimbursement of the cost of such repairs was repudiated by his Insurer viz. opposite party 3 on 28.1.1991. Inspite of such repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company the complainant remained silent all through. Later, he preferred this claim only in 1995. In our opinion, the cause of action for the claim arose in July, 1990 and not from 28.8.1994. The complainant having preferred his claim long after the lapse of 3 years from the date of accrual of the cause of action, the claim was rightly rejected by the Forum on the ground of limitation. We find that the case has been rightly decided by the Forum and no interference with the order is warranted. The appeal fails and is dismissed on contest but without any cost in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.