AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COMPLAINANT claims a sum of Rs. 25.00 lakhs as compensation for loss suffered by him on account of illegal detention of his oil tanker by the two opposite parties. He. also wants Rs. 5.00 lakhs towards mental torture and harassment suffered by him. Lastly there is a prayer for interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment. Of course, the complainant also wants Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.
TWO questions arise : (i) if complainant is at all a consumer, and (ii) if the complaint is within the period of limitation. Complainant says that Om Prakash had a contract with Indian Oil Corporation for transport of diesel from Jaipur, Rajasthan to Nazibabad, U.P. For this purpose Om Prakash entered into oral contract with the complainant since he was owning oil tanker. Agreement was, complainant will get Rs. 6,531/- per trip out of which Om Prakash will get 6% as commission. On one occasion i.e. on 30.6.1996 the oil tanker met with : an accident in which his driver was killed. Diesel in the tanker had leaked to some extent. Complainant took the tanker to the petrol pump of Om Prakash on 4.7.1996. This tanker was then taken to Indian Oil Corporation, Nazibabad, U.P. for unloading the remaining quantity of diesel. Since the tanker was not returned, complainant also filed a criminal complaint on 17.9.1996 against Om Prakash and one Suresh Kumar Sharma, Deputy Manage of Indian Oil Corporation, Nazibabad, U.P. under Sections 120B, 406, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. It is stated in this complaint that summons were issued to both Om Prakash and Suresh Kumar Sharma under Sections 406/34, I.P.C. However, Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to release the tanker to the complainant on ''Superdari''. It could be released only on 19.9.2000 by the order of Sessions Judge on complainant''s agreeing to give Bank Guarantee of Rs. 40,000/ -. From this date complainant fixes his cause of action for filing this complaint.
From the averment made in the complaint, it is difficult to hold that complainant is consumer The fact that his tanker had been allegedly detained by Om Prakash and Indian Oil Corporation does not raise any consumer dispute. Cause of action for filing this complaint in any case could not be the date when the tanker was released to the complainant on the order of the Sessions Judge, Sonepat but had to be when the tanker was taken to Nazibabad, U.P. after he had parked the same at the petrol pump of Om Prakash and that would be a date 4th July, 1996 which would make the complaint barred by limitation. Considering the whole aspect of the matter, this complaint, in our view, is not maintainable and is dismissed. Complaint dismissed. ______________