- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 30 October 1995
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, B. L. Hansaria
- Result
- Appeal allowed.
Headnote
Consumer Protection Act, 1985 :
Consumer disputes redressal fo1111n-Jurisdiction of-Daim for garage charges-Suit pending before competent Civil Court-Order of National Con-sumer Dispute Redressal Commission directing to hand over possession of car to respondem-Held, not justified.
The State Consumer Forum, in respect of a claim for garage charges, held that it could not consider the claim as the matter was already pending and was snb-judice before the competent Civil Court However, the Nation· al Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed to hand over possession of the car to the respondent. Allowing the appeal of the proprietor of the Garage, this Court
HELD : The Consumer Protection Act, 1985 is not in derogation of any other law. In that view of the matter, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was not justified in directing to hand over posses· sion of the car to the respondent. [562-B)
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
Leave granted. •
With regard to the claim for Garage charges, C.S. No. 49-B/1990 on the file of the Illrd 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 Mis. 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.
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.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9928 of 1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.93 of the National Con-sumer District Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A. No. 239 of 1991.
Appearances
R. Mohan and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellant.
B.K. Satija and Y.P. Dhingra for the Respondent No. 1.
Vishnu Mehra and K.M.K. Nair for the Respondent No. 2.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.