KULDIP SINGH KALRA Vs. ROSHAN LAL PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is the revision petition filed by Shri Kuldip Singh Kalra, who was the respondent before the State Commission against the order of 21st October, 1991 of the State Commission, Bihar in Appeal No. 22 of 1991. The revision petitioner herein was the complainant before the District Forum and, as already mentioned, respondent before the State Commission.

(2.) The revision petitioner complainant had purchased a second-hand Maruti Car on the 5th September,1988 from the Respondent Shri Roshan Lai Pal for a sum of Rs. 54,000/- at Patna. As the car was said to be giving trouble and could not be repaired, the revision petitioner returned the car to the opposite party against the refund of amount of Rs. 53,000/. The refund was, however, agreed to be adjusted against the price of Rs. 77,000/of another second-hand Maruti Car purchased by the revision petitioner from the same opposite party on 26th September, 1988 by paying the balance of Rs. 25,000/- in cash. The second car purchased on 26th September, 1988 was, however, seized by the Police at Gaya on the allegation that it was a stolen car. A police case regarding the theft and recovery of the car is said to be pending against the revision petitioner complainant and the seller of car at Dinapur. The revision petitioner complainant has also filed a case against the opposite party Mr. Pal under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. Both the cases are reported to be pending.

(3.) As there was no error of jurisdiction or illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the consumer forum in this case, we were not inclined to entertain the revision petition. However on the 18th of August, 1992, when the petition came up for hearing, on the plea of the counsel for the revision petitioner it was admitted on the limited question whether sale of stolen of property viz. property in which the seller did not have proper title, would constitute a defective goods as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sale of property by a party in which he does not have title and therefore, is incapable of selling or transferring it would constitute sale of defective goods.