DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS, ALIPORE, KOLKATA – 700 027
C.C. Case No.___326______OF_____2014________
Date of Filing :_24.7.2014 Date of Passing Judgement: _18.3.2014
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Dr.(Mrs.) Shibani Chakraborty
Complainant : Pranjit Baran Dey,s/o late R.C. Dey of Flat no.S-4, Dhirendra Apartment, Q13/1, Kamdahari Purbapara, Garia, P.S. Bansdroni, Kolkata – 84.
-Versus-
O.P/O.P(s) : 1. The Manager, M/s Jalan and Sons, Metro Polls Mall, Hiland Park, Shop no.lG08, Ground Floor, Chakgaria, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata – 75.
2. The Director, M/s Jalan and Sons , 32, Ezra Street, 6th Floor, Room no.655, Kolkata – 1.
JUDGEMENT
Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President
This complaint gave birth due to purchase of two wooden almirah on 1.7.2009 with five years warranty from the O.p-1 . It has further stated that complainant booked two wooden almirah from O.P-1 on 6.6.2009 and which were delivered to the complainant as per delivery challan by the O.p-2 on 1.7.20009 (annexure 2). From the inception of the purchase complainant faces difficulties of several problems which are manufacturing defects and fungus attacks , grows to those almirah due to fungus problem and thereby valuable apparels have been damaged. It has stated that the O.P has already done two times fungus treatment upon both the almirah once in 2011 and another in 2012. It has further claimed that in the month of June, 2013 the back portion of the almirah became bent and curve and big whole was found in the back portion of the almirah. The matter was informed over phone and lodged several complaints personally at their show room to remove the defect but did not pay any heed inspite of warranty period. All the letters are submitted including the legal notice of the lawyer. Hence this case for deficiency of service with a prayer to replace the defective almirah or to remove the defect arises therein or and compensation of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.10,000/- litigation cost.
The O.ps are contesting the case by filing written version supported by affidavit and denies all the allegations leveled against them.
It is the positive defence of the O.P that these O.ps never sold any product to the complainant or any other purchasers under the warranty period as claimed by the complainant and also claimed that question of fungus in the almirah is their own wrong after about five years lapse does not arise at all in any way . So, there is no dispute between the parties within the period of five years and strongly claimed that there is no warranty period of such product or any product of the O.P. So, this complaint is harassing in nature and concocted, baseless and required to be dismissed .
Points for decision in this case is whether the O.Ps acted deficiency in service or not.
Decision with reasons
From annexure 1 the order booking form we find that on 6.6.2009 complainant booked two doors wardrob at a consideration of Rs.16000/- and an advance of Rs.1000/- was paid and balance of Rs.15000/- is due. But in that document there is no whisper of warranty as claimed by the complainant . Thereafter delivery report also shows that the said wardrob was delivered to the complainant on 1.7.2009 vide delivery challan no.1458. We also are not aware of the warranty period. So, if we turn our eyes to the complaint petition ,then from Clause B of para 3 it appears that complainant is facing difficulty since inception of purchase. If we consider that date of delivery i.e. 1.7.2009 then it is clear that the complainant is facing difficulty from 1.7.2009 . We are aware that in view of section 24A limitation period is two years . But if the complainant filed a prayer in view of sub section 24A satisfying the Forum that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period, in that event, this Forum entertains the complaint after recording the reason for condoning such delay. But in the instant case the date of limitation has hopelessly elapsed after expiry of 1.7.2011 considering the fact that since inception of purchase complainant is facing difficulties. The instant case was filed on 24.7.2014 without any application for condonation of delay. In this regard Hon’ble Supreme Court in a reported Judgement reported in 2013 (4) CPR Pg 427 ( SBI Vs. M/s BS Agricultural Industries ) have opined that there is no application for condonation of delay nor any sufficient cause . This aspect was not examined by any Forum and set aside the complainant and dismissed as time barred. Here in the instant case from the questionnaire and W.V it appears that O.P has pointed out the same in para 2 that the case is not maintainable in law and in its present form . Moreover, complainant has not filed any scrap of paper to show that the warrant period is five years and when the question was suggested to that effect complainant has replied that at the time of purchase sales representative stated that there is a warranty and five years free service against the disputed almirah but unfortunately failed to state the name of such Sales Representative. It is well known to us that sales representative comes and go and there is no liability of the O.P regarding verbal assurance ,if any, at all by the said sales representative until and unless the name is supplied or he made a party to the dispute. One thing we failed to understand if really sales representative stated that there is a warranty of fiver years then there is a duty of the complainant to ventilate the same in writing ,otherwise it cannot be believed sitting in the chair of the Forum. So, complainant has miserably failed to prove the limitation as discussed above . Secondly complainant failed to prove the warranty of the almirah and after using five years he made a complaint which has no leg to stand upon.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case is dismissed for firstly barred by limitation and secondly on merit also in view of the discussion made hereinabove.
Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
Ordered
That the case is dismissed for firstly barred by limitation and secondly on merit also in view of the discussion made hereinabove.
Member President
