NARPAT SINGH PARIHAR Vs. SIMPSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint under sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986) (for short' 'the Act' herein) has been filed by the complainant. It was received on June 8, 1989. The complainant put his signatures on it on 25-7-89. It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased truck chassis No. DAJ DAE 00044 Engine No. 354 S. 22867 for Rs. 2,26,256. 41 P. vide debit memo dated 23-9-80. Its financers were Bank of Baroda, Jodhpur. The above Truck was plied by the complainant for a few months and thereafter it became defective. The defects developed to such an extent that it was impossible to repair it. It has been stated in the complaint that the truck chassis purchased by the complainant was got inspected by Shri Kishan Singh Deora and he detected several manufacturing defects. It has been stated in para 2 of the complaint that the inspection report is submitted herewith. It may be mentioned that the Inspection Report submitted by the complainant relates to Truck No. RRN 2, which belongs to Nathu Singh Bhanwarlal. Some of the defects pointed out are mentioned in para 2 of the complaint. The complainant has said that the opposite-parties failed to supply spare parts. They did not arrange for its repair and servicing and as a result of that the truck completely went out of order on account of which, he suffered damages. The details of the damages/compensation claimed by the complainant are: (i) price of the chassis-Rs. 2,26,256. 41p. , (ii) cost of erecting body-Rs. 23,000/ -. (iii) expenses incurred on repairs-Rs. 2,09,000/-; (iv) interest on loans of banks Rs. 3,17,000/-; (v) Driver tax, insurance Rs. 87,000/- (vi) compensation on account of mental torture etc. Rs. 1,15,000/-, Total Rs. 9,77,256. 41p. Writ Petition No. 2012/87 was filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India which was decided on Feb. 3, 1989. According to the complainant, the High Court ordered that the complainant should file claim for compensation before the Consumer Protection Forum. Hence, this complaint in pursuance of the order of the Rajasthan High Court. As there were certain defects in the complaint, the complaintant removed them and filed the copies of the documents. On August 23, 1989, we directed the complainant to satisfy us as to how the claim made by him in the complaint is within limitation. He prayed for two days' time which was allowed. On 26-8-89, he submitted written arguments. We orally heard the parties on the question of limitation.

(2.) BEFORE examining the question of limitation, it may be mentioned that the HIGH COURT OF RAJSTHAN , in its judgment dated 3/2/1989, has, inter-alia, stated as under :

(3.) THE third point has already been mentioned above. It relates to recurring cause of action. Sec. 22 deals with continuing breaches and torts. THE present case is not that of a continuing breach of contract or a continuing tort. Ordinarily cause of action for a suit for damages for breach of any contract arises when the contract is broken or (when there are successive breaches) when the breach in respect of which the suit instituted occurs or (where the breach is continuing) when it ceases. In this case, there is no question of continuous cause of action as stated in the written arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant. A perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant shows that he has claimed quantified compensation. Nothing has been stated in the complaint about limitation in respect of the various amounts claimed under different heads. Once he has claimed the refund of the price of the chassis and the cost of the body built by him and also the expenses incurred on its repairs, the question of continuing breaches and torts does not arise.