DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

   SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,

   AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144

             C.C. CASE NO. 90 OF 2018

DATE OF FILING: 1.8.2018                      DATE OF JUDGEMENT:  4.9.2019

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member         :   Jhunu Prasad                        

COMPLAINANT      : Nasiruzzaman, son of late Abdus Sobhan, Vill. Sahazahan Road, Ward no.-3,  Near Bhai Bhai Sangha Club , P.O & P.S Baruipur, Kolkata-144.

• VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    :   Dr. Hemanta Kumar Sil, Sristi Apartment, 1^st floor, Madarat Road, P.O & P.S Baruipur, Kolkata-144.

__________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President

           Facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.

           The complainant approached the O.P Doctor for replacement of his denture on 16.2.2016. Denture was replaced by the O.P Doctor who is a BDS on payment of Rs.2500/- to him. Thereafter, the denture set did not properly fit to the complainant and, therefore, inflation developed in the gum of the complainant. Gum started bleeding and it also swelled. Complainant had to suffer a lot of troubles. He went to the O.P doctor again and requested him to change the denture set by a new one. But the O.P refused to do it and, therefore, the complainant has come up before this Forum by filing the instant case ,praying for refund of the amount of Rs.2,500/- as well as compensation etc. alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P doctor.

          The O.P doctor has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended by him, inter alia, that he replaced the denture set of the complainant thrice and yet the complainant was not satisfied with the said set on the aesthetic point of view. So, last of all, he refused to replace the denture set and, therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case for the purpose of squeezing money from him. It is also averred in the written statement that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed in limini.

             Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

                                      POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is the case maintainable in law ?
2. Is the O.P  guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs, if any,  as prayed for?

  EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES    

        Petition of complaint is treated as evidence of the complainant vide his petition dated 25.9.2018. Evidence on affidavit is led on behalf of the O.P and the same is kept in the record. Questionnaires, Replies and BNAs filed by the parties are also kept in the record after consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1  :

            Now to see whether the case is maintainable in law or not.

           It is argued on behalf of the O.P that the case has not been filed within the period of limitation and, therefore, the case is barred by the law of limitation.

          It is revealed in the petition of complaint that the complainant approached the O.P o 16.2.2016 . The instant case is filed on 18.8.2018 i.e more than two years after the cause of action has arisen. The case is required to be filed within two years after the cause of action has arisen. If the case is not filed within two years , the complainant has to file a petition praying for condonation of delay and such delay may be condoned ,if the complainant succeeds to make out sufficient cause for such delay. In the instant case, the complainant has not filed any petition praying for condonation of delay and this being so, it palpably appears on the face of the record that the complaint is barred by limitation, as it is filed after expiry of 2 years from the date of cause of action. So, the complaint is not maintainable in law.

          Hence, this point is answered against the complainant.

          In view of the decision of Point no.1 as referred t above, any discussion on these two points appears to be redundant and as such we do hold that the complainant is not entitled to get any award as prayed for.

           In the  result, the case fails.

            Hence,

                                                                   ORDERED

            That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P ,but without any cost.

                        Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to send a copy of the judgment free of cost at once to the parties concerned by speed post.

                                                                                                                   President

I / We agree

                                                          Member

          Dictated and corrected by me

                             President