G SADANANDAN PILLAI Vs. S BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second opposite party in O. P. no.517 of 1996 of the District Forum, Kollam, is the appellant. The complainant/1st respondent purchased an auto rikshaw from the appellant/second opposite party as per Ext. Al agreement dated 20.4.1995. According to the complainant when the vehicle was take to Karunagappally the same was seized by the police, saying that the same has no permit to ply within the jurisdiction of Karunagappally and it could ply only at Kottarakkara. Thereupon the complainant approached the A. M. V. I. to get the permit transferred to Karunagappally and then it was revealed that the vehicle cannot be plied without paying entry tax. The vehicle had changed hands on more than one occasion. Initially, it was purchased by the first opposite party/second respondent from Pondicherry. He sold it to the third opposite party who later sold the same to the second opposite party/appellant, the vendor of the complainant/1st respondent. From the said narration it is clear that the vehicle having been purchased from outside Kerala, i. e. , from Pondicherry, entry tax had to be paid here. But none had paid the same. And the complainant was forced to pay entry tax Rs.3,675/- and penalty. The complainant in addition claimed that he had to pay hire purchase amount to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and also claimed compensation for non-user to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. In addition claim was made for compensation towards mental agony. He made a consolidated claim of Rs.65,000/- as compensation.

(2.) The second opposite party/appellant filed his version wherein he contended that the complainant is not a consumer and also maintained that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He also denied the liability to pay compensation on any of the heads claimed by the complainant. Evidence was taken by the District Forum and ultimately the District Forum directed the second opposite party/ appellant to pay Rs.3,675/- and another sum of Rs.1,000/- towards entry tax and penalty which the complainant had to pay, and a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation, with direction to pay the same within a period of one month from the date of the order.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that inasmuch as the Court has refused to pay compensation for non-user and also payment of Rs.25,000/- allegedly towards hire purchase arrears, what remained was only in the nature of a breach of contract and consequently it was not a matter which could fall within the jurisdiction of the Forum. In support of the same the learned Counsel relied on the decisions in M/s. Suraj Steel, Hazaribagh V/s. R. P. Sharma,1991 2 CPJ 427, wherein it is observed that the matter involved therein was purely in the realm of breach of contract and hence cannot be considered as a consumer dispute. The other decision relied on by the learned Counsel is the one reported in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Dam Division, Wahi (Pavani) V/s. Shri Hariganga Cement Ltd. Nagpur, 1996 1 CPJ 299 there it was a breach of agreement to supply non- levy cement inasmuch as the quantity agreed upon was not supplied. The National Commission held that the matter involved was only a breach of contract for failure to supply the full quantity of goods agreed to be supplied and consequently the same is not a consumer dispute.