Karnataka High Court
The City Municipal Council vs S.A. Lateef And Co. on 27 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: AIR2004KANT491, 2005(1)CTLJ412(KAR), ILR2004KAR4322, 2004(6)KARLJ103, AIR 2004 KARNATAKA 491, 2004 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 3032, 2005 (4) CTLJ 412, 2001 (6) KANTLJ 103, (2004) 6 KANT LJ 103, (2004) ILR (KANT) (4) 4322, (2005) 1 CIVILCOURTC 98, (2005) 1 RECCIVR 171, (2004) 4 ICC 717, (2005) 2 CIVLJ 155, (2004) 4 CURCC 52, (2004) 3 KCCR 1853
Author: K. Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K. Sreedhar Rao
JUDGMENT K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. The appeal is filed against the order of the Civil Judge (Sr. dn.), Kolar in O.S. No. 6/98. ,
2. The appellant is the defendant. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money in a sum of Rs. 2,10,275.50 with costs and interest. The defendant had invited tenders towards supply of pump sets. The plaintiff's tender is accepted. Accordingly, the plaintiff supplied the pump sets on 22.3.1993. A sum of Rs. 3,13,000-00 was paid towards the part of the value of the pump sets and the balance of Rs. 2,10,275-50 remained unpaid.
The petitioner got issued legal notice. Later on filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Kolar in complaint No. KOF/ COMP/6-95. The complaint was allowed and defendant was directed to pay the balance amount. In the appeal, the State Commission by its order dated 16.1.1996, held that the subject matter of dispute is not governed by the Consumer Protection Act and gave liberty to the plaintiff to approach Civil Court. Accordingly suit is filed.
3. The defendant contends that the pump sets supplied are defective. As per the agreement MICO sets were, to be supplied, whereas the plaintiff supplied Rolex Company sets and they are substandard. It is also stated that the plaintiff undertook to replace with the pump sets of MICO Company and failed to do so; therefore disputes the liability to pay the suit claim. It is contended that Section 14 of the Limitation Act will not apply and the suit is barred by time. Hence, pray for dismissal of the suit.
The Trial Court decreed the suit claim with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation and costs. Hence the appeal.
4. The contention of the defendants that the I.P. sets supplied are not in accordance with the terms and we're of substandard quality, is an untenable contention. The defendant consciously accepted the delivery. The fact that some of the sets were burnt at the time of installation does not indicate that machineries were substandard and had manufacturing defects. To establish such a case, it was necessary for defendant to have referred the machineries to the experts for their opinion. The defendant has failed to show that the I.P. sets supplied had manufacturing defects. There is no evidence to show that four sets which were burnt after installation, was on account of manufacturing defects. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the contention that the appellant is not liable to pay the suit claim.
5. On the question of limitation, provisions of Section 14 declare that bonafidely and with due diligence if a person is prosecuting any civil proceedings in any other Court which has no competent jurisdiction, the period spent in that litigation is to be deducted. The District Consumer Forum is very much a Court of Civil Jurisdiction and the proceedings before the Consumer Forum are civil proceedings before the Consumer Forum are civil proceedings. Merely by the fact that State Forum has held that the complaint is not maintainable and that the plaintiff is not a consumer within the definition, is not a ground by itself to infer that there was lack of diligence or bonafides on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was assisted by the counsel. The District Forum entertained the complaint and granted a decree. The limitation for filing the suit in the normal course was 22.3.96. The complaint before the Forum was filed on 7.1.1995 and proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act finally terminated on 9.1.1997. About 2 years and 8 months is spent in litigation before the Consumer Forum. If the said period is deducted, the present suit filed on 12.1.1998 is well within the limitation. Therefore, the grant of benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act by the Trial Court is sound and proper. I find no merit in the appeal.
6. The transaction of supply of I.P. sets is not for commercial purpose. Therefore, the grant of interest shall have to be at 6% per annum from the date of transaction till payment. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part.