DATE OF FILING                    :           21-09-2012.

DATE OF S/R                            :         11-10-2012.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :           13-02-2013. 

M/s Manoranjan Polley

The Prop. Manoranjan Polley

S/o Late Makhan Lal Polley

Howrah Amta Road, Das Nagar,

P.S. Jagacha, District – Howrah, --------------------------------------------COMPLAINANT.

Versus   -

Boyd smiths Pvt. Ltd.

Rep. by, - its Directors.

Ashok Kumar Boyd

Anup Kumar boyd

Subhas Boyd

B-3/5, Gillander House

8, N. S. Road, Kol.-1.--------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                                    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

The instant case was filed by complainant M/s Manoranjan Polley   U/S 12 of the  C.P.  Act, 1986, as amended against the O.P.  Boyd Smiths Pvt. Ltd. alleging deficiency in service wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.P. to refund the entire amount of Rs. 17,05,000/- with loss of Rs. 2,90,000/- aggregating Rs. 19,95,000/- together with litigation cost as the O.P. company in spite receipt of Rs. 17,05,000/- supplied defective vertical boring machine and swift planning machine measuring 16 inch X 5 inch. with accessories and in spite of repeated requests did not either pay back the money or replaced the defective machine.

The O.P. in their Written Version challenged the maintainability of the complaint as it is barred by limitation and as it cannot invoke the Consumer Protection Act Provision ; that the complainant runs a factory and that the O.P. always supplies second hand machines. So, the complaint should be dismissed.

Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

Is the complaint maintainable ?

Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS   :  

Point Nos. 1 & 2.

Both the points are taken up together for consideration. On perusal of the complaint, written version and other documents as enclosed, we are of the view that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.  The petition for condonation of the delay U/S 5 of the Limitation Act dated 24/09/2012 cannot come to the rescue of the complainant in as much as the machine in dispute was purchased in the year 2005 and the complaint was lodged  in the year 2012 after expiry of long 7 years. The delay has not been properly explained. We also fail to understand what factors stood in the way of the complainant to take recourse to other legal measures within the stipulated time when the machine was suffering from gross defects.

Even if, the instant complaint would have been filed in due time for redressal before this Forum, the complainant could not be entitled to get any relief as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. This is because the complainant purchased the machine in dispute for commercial purpose which is barred by Sec.-2(1)(d)(ii). We come across from the petition of complainant as well as from the written version that the complaint runs a factory which is obviously made for gain. The Affidavit sworn in by the complainant dated 30/01/2013 cannot alter the stringent position  as embodied in the aforesaid Section of the Consumer Protection Act. He is involved in  manufacturing process. Therefore, we are of the clear view that the complainant cannot get any redress from this Forum for the alleged supply of defective machines. So, both the points are accordingly disposed of. The petition of complaint shall be dismissed.