Proprietor, M/s. Jabalpur Tractors Vs. Sedmal Jainarain & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.9928 Of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5731 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.93 of the National Consumer District Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A. No. 239 of 1991)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5731 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.93 of the National Consumer District Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A. No. 239 of 1991)
Petitioner: Proprietor, M/s. Jabalpur Tractors
Respondent: Sedmal Jainarain & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.9928 Of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5731 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.93 of the National Consumer District Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A. No. 239 of 1991)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5731 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.93 of the National Consumer District Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A. No. 239 of 1991)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & B.L. HANSARIA, JJ
Date of Judgment: Oct 31, 1995
Appearances:
Mr.R. Mohan, Senior Advocate, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate with him for the Appellant.
Mr.B.K. Satija, Mr. Y.P. Dingra, Advocates for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Vishnu Mehra and Mr.K.K.K. Nair, Advocates for the Respondent No. 2.
Head Note:
CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
Practice and Procedure
Matter regarding claim of Garage charges pending before the Civil Court – Held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was not justified in directing to hand over possession of the car to the ~4~ The Consumer Protection Act is not in derogation of any other law – Appeal allowed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. With regard to the claim for Garage charges, C.S.No.49-B/1990 on the file of the IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur is pending disposal. The State Consumer Forum had also noticed it in paragraph 26 of its order and concluded that the amount claimed by M/s. Jabalpur Tractors as Garage charges is Rs.18,000/- and this cannot be considered as the matter is already pending and is sub judice before the competent Civil Court. The Consumer Protection Act is not in derogation of any other law. In that view of the matter, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the impugned order, was not justified in directing to hand over possession of the car to the respondent.
2. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the National Forum in First Appeal No.239/1991 dated February 18, 1993 in so far as the Garage charges are concerned is set aside. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. With regard to the claim for Garage charges, C.S.No.49-B/1990 on the file of the IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur is pending disposal. The State Consumer Forum had also noticed it in paragraph 26 of its order and concluded that the amount claimed by M/s. Jabalpur Tractors as Garage charges is Rs.18,000/- and this cannot be considered as the matter is already pending and is sub judice before the competent Civil Court. The Consumer Protection Act is not in derogation of any other law. In that view of the matter, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the impugned order, was not justified in directing to hand over possession of the car to the respondent.
2. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the National Forum in First Appeal No.239/1991 dated February 18, 1993 in so far as the Garage charges are concerned is set aside. No costs.
