CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(1992) 11 NCDRC CK 0028

KANJIBHAI GOVABHAI PRAJAPATI vs MANAGER, HINDUSTAN TRADING CORPORATION

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 27 November 1992 · Citation: 1993 3 CPJ 1513

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.A.Shah , R.K.Shah J.

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 356 words
1.

-THE complainant has alleged that he has purchased an engine for Rs. 5,100/- from the opposite party. THE engine was defective with the result that he could not use the same and draw water for his agricultural crops with the result that he has suffered damages of Rs. 3,02,000/ -and has filed this complaint for the recovery of the damages.

2.

THIS is a complaint with regard to the defective goods. The opposite party is not accepting that he is the purchaser of the engine. The complainant has not produced the bill but says that the opposite party is not giving bill to the poor and ignorant cultivators. Whatever may be the position, if the engine is bad it could have been repaired or he could have filed a complaint for replacement. Maximum relief that can be given is the replacement or the reparation or price of the engine if the same is proved to have been purchased from the opposite party. We feel that in order to bring the complaint before the State Commission the complainants are inflating the claims exorbitantly and several such matters have been filed before this Commission. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this practice shall have to be curbed.

We have read the complaint minutely. We have also heard the Secretary of Gujarat Mazdoor Union. We are of the opinion that even if there is any damage which has occurred to the complainant, the damage should be direct as provided under Section 73 of the Contract Act. The claim is, therefore, exaggerated. We, therefore, return the complaint without going into merits and give liberty to the complainant to file the same before the District Forum. If the complaint is filed, the District Forum will consider the claim of the complainant. The observations made above are not on merits and that will be not considered by the District Forum when the complaint is filed.

3.

IF the complainant wants to approach Civil Court, he is permitted to do so. ORDER The complaint is returned to the complainant to file the same before the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction. Complaint returned.