SHRI DAMODAR SWAROOP CHANDEL JAIPUR Vs. HINDUSTAN MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint under S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986) which for the sake of brevity be hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was originally filed by the complainant against the opposite-party and Western Indian Motors, M. I. Road, Jaipur. At the request of the complainant, name of the Western Indian Motors, M. I. Road, Jaipur was deleted. Subsequently the complainant submitted an application that the Western Indian Motors, M. I. Road, Jaipur may be impleaded as a party to the complaint. He, however, stated on 11. 4. 89 that he does not want to press the application. Now the opposite-party Hindustan Motors is before us. The complainant has averred that he purchased one Hindustan T-180 Mini bus chassis from their sales agent Western Indian Motors on 30-1-82 for Rs. 1,54,000/ -. According to him the mini bus purchased suffered from many mechanical defects and it was unfit for use. He has mentioned the defects in para 3, 4 & 5 of the complaint. In view of the conclusion to which we have arrived at, it is not necessary to detail the defects pointed out by the complainant. The complainant has prayed that the opposite-party may be directed to refund the price of the bus chassis Rs. 1,54,000/-expenses for repairs amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- and interest on the loan borrowed by him from the bank which is to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. In all he has claimed Rs. 4 54 000/-from the opposite-party. The complainant filed some documents with the 'complaint with which we are not concerned at present. The opposite-party by its version of the case which was filed on June 25, 1989, resisted the complaint on various grounds. It raised four preliminary objections. The two main preliminary objections taken by the opposite-party are: (1) that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable to this case i. e. to the complaint filed by the complainant, for, the cause of action for the complaint arose in 1982 (the chassis of the bus was purchased according to the complainant on 30-1-82 ). (2) that the complaint as instituted is hopelessly time barred as the cause of action arose in 1982 and the complaint was filed as late as on Feb. 21, 1989. The averment in this regard is that under the Limitation Act, 1963 the complainant could not institute a suit for damages/ compensation in regard to the mini bus chassis in 1989 and so for that matter he cannot invoke the provisions of the Act for the purpose of filing the complaint. On merits it was submitted that the bus was not unsuitable for carrying passengers after a body was put on it. On the basis of the warranty which was given to the complainant, it was stated that the defects under warranty, if any, were duly attended as and when they were brought to the notice. A plea was raised that the chassis of mini bus was purchased more than seven years before the filing of the complaint and as such at the time when the complaint was filed whatever was said in regard to the defects and unfitness of the bus, they were beyond the terms and conditions of the warranty. Reply was filed by the complainant controverting the pleas raised by the opposite-party in its version of the case. Preliminary objections were also denied. In support of the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and besides that affidavits of Serva Shri Kajor Mal Mehra, Deshbandu Kheda, Krishan Kumar Kharbanda and Pramod Gulati were also submitted. The complainant was cross examined on his affidavit. Other deponents of the affidavits were not cross examined. The opposite-party did not lead any evidence.

(2.) WE have heard Shri Deshbandu Kheda, authorised representative of the complainant and also the complainant. WE have also heard Smt. Malini Sood, Advocate for the opposite-party. After hearing the parties, we have come to the conclusion that his complaint should be dismissed as barred by time and, therefore, we do not propose to go into the other preliminary objections and the merits of the case. Chapter III of the Act came into force from July 1, 1987. The bus chassis was purchased on 30-1-82. The relief claimed in the complaint are for the refund of the chassis price, the amount spent by the complainant on the repairs of the bus and the interest which the complainant has paid on the loan which he took from the bank. The complainant has stated in the last para of the complaint "compensation amount claimed". The amount is claimed under three heads as stated above. In this case residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act is applicable which is as under: - 113. Any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this schedule Three years When the right to sue accrues In this case the right to sue accrued when the defective chassis of the mini bus was purchased or soon thereafter when he came to know about the defects in the chassis of the mini bus. The Act is conspicuously silent with regard to the limitation. S. 3 of the Act says that the provisions of this Act are in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. A somewhat similar question arose before the National Commission, New Delhi in 1989-90 (2) MTR 1. It was ruled in that case that if the claim for damages and compensation had become time barred under the Law of Limitation long prior to the coming into force of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the National Commission will not entertain such a stale claim. The complaint filed by the complainant is a highly belated one inasmuch as the purchase of mini bus chassis was made in 1982. The purchase of the mini bus by the complainant: from the opposite-party was a contract of sale. Any claim for damages and compensation which has arisen out of the said contract of sale had become time barred under Art. 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 much before coming into force of the Act. WE therefore, hold that this complaint is time barred under the Limitation Act, 1963. In view of this conclusion it is not necessary to examine the other preliminary objections and the merits of the case.