S P KOHLI Vs. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to have the proceedings initiated against him by the first respondent quashed. These proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") on a complaint dated 10 January 1991 filed by the second respondent Sat Bir Singh Yadav. The third respondent is the Lt. Governor, Delhi. The petitioner claims that he is not covered under the provisions of the Act and that the first respondent has wrongly invoked its jurisdiction in the matter. We also issued notice in the matter to Mr. Madan Lokur, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, as we thought we required his assistance. No one has appeared on behalf of the second respondent to oppose this petition though earlier Mr. B.R. Madan had been appearing for him.

(2.) The petitoner is running a factory under the name and style of Mechelec and manufactures cutting tools. His factory is at Gurgaon. The petitioner on 28 March 1989 purchased a Maruti Deluxe Car bearing registration No. DBG- 9286 from M/s. O.P. Motors, 24, Apna Bazar, Gurgaon, for an amount of Rs.90,000.00 I ationer says at that time it was represented to him that the registered owner of the car was one Mr. M.M. Narula and receipt purporting the signature of Mr. M.M. Narula for having received the consideration was given to the petitioner by M/s. O.P. Motors and the same had been witnessed by Mr. Raju Dutta, a partner of M/s. O.P. Motors. The petitioner took delivery of the car as well as the relevant papers relating to the ownership of the car. The petitioner thereafter sold the car to Satbir Singh Yadav, the second respondent, on 10 April 1989 for a consideration of Rs.94,500.00 . The petitioner passed on all the papers to the second respondent at the time the deal went through. Satbir Singh Yadav on 14 October 1989 in turn sold the car to one Sukhpal Singh Chaudhary. However, later on it turned out that the car in question had been stolen from Ahmedabad and a case was pending investigation. The police took custody of the car from Sukhpal Singh Chaudhary. Sukhpal Singh Chaudhary filed a complaint under section 11 of the Act before the first respondent against Dharam Pal Yadav, father of the second respondent. The first respondent passed an order on 8 November 1990 directing Dharam Pal Yadav to pay to Sukhpal Singh Chaudhary a sum of Rs.90,000.00 with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 15 October 1989 till payment. "The objection of Dharam Pal Yadav that the first respondent had no jurisdiction in the matter was overruled. Then Satbir Singh Yadav in his turn filed a complaint against the petitioner for refund of the price of Rs.94,500.00 and also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum. He further claimed a sum of Rs.5,000.00 as damages. On this a notice was issued to the petitioner by the first respondent which notice he has challenged in these proceedings.

(3.) Two questions arise for consideration: (1) if the petitioner is a "trader" within the meaning of the Act; and (2) if the 'defect' in title of the goods would tentamount to a defect in the goods itself. Mr. Lokur drew our at tention to a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Roshal Lal Pal & Anr. v. Kuldip Singh Kalra & Anr., II (1993) CPf 170 (NO, where National Commission held that the term "defect" as defined in section 2(1)(f) of the Act had specific connotation and that it meant imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, potency, purity or standard required to be- maintained in the goods, and that a defect in title to property would not fall under any of the defects enumerated in that section. This judgment of the National Commission came on 7 December 1992 after the notice in the present case was issued to the petitioner by the first respondent who, it would appear, would be bound by the law laid by the National Commission. The facts in the case before the National Commission were some what same as in the present case before us. The question which came up for consideration before the National Commission was whether the property in which the seller did not have proper title would constitute defective goods as defined in the Act. The National Commission, however, did not go into the question whether the seller in the case before it was a trader within the meaning of the Act.