D.O.F:22/10/2022

                                                                                                         D.O.O:04/09/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.257/2022

Dated this, the 04^th day of September 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA.K.G                          : MEMBER

Abdul Rafeeq. B.S

S/o Sulaiman

R/at Baithul Hail

Kunnil, Mogral Puthur Post, Kasaragod – 671124        : Complainant

And

Mr. Sreekumar

General Manaager

Realgard Power Systems Pvt Ltd

Near Elite Mission Hospital

Santhigramam, Koorkenchery, Thrissur – 680007       : Opposite Party

(Adv: B Srikumar)

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT

The complainant filed under section 35 of consumer protection act 2019.

     The case of the complainant is that he purchased one Diamond 3 phase building stabilizer worth Rs. 19,999/- from ‘Oswald Traders’ at Kannur manufactured by Opposite Party.  Though complainant purchased the product, shop owner did not care to fit it in his house.  It will be fitted by the service personal of the company.  Technician came during March and July 2022.  Due to the non fitting of this device as Opposite Party assured, Air conditioner worth of Rs. 33,000/- and T.V worth 1,48,000/- got damaged the said loss is to be compensated by the Opposite Party.  The complainant prays for a direction to pay Rs. 2,10,000/- and cost of the proceedings.

2.     The Opposite Party filed written version denying the averments in the complaint Opposite Party admitted purchase of the diamond stabilizer on 14/03/2013.  The warranty card and user manual provided specifically state that all products of the Opposite Party are covered by warranty period of 2 years after sale.  The complaint is filed after 9 years after purchase and complaint is liable to be dismissed because they suppressed true facts and came with unclean hands.

3.     The Opposite Party filed IA 106/2023 to decide the issue of maintainability on territorial jurisdiction and limitation.

          On the basis of pleading of the parties, the following points arise for consideration.

          Whether the commission has got territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute and whether complaint is barred by limitation.

Territorial jurisdiction.

          Under section 34 of Consumer Protection Act a complaint can filed where the complainant resides or personally works for gain, or the cause of action, wholly as in part arises.  In the present case complainant resides within the jurisdiction of the Commission and Commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide the case.

          Regarding limitation IA 106/2023 was filed on 23/03/2023 by Opposite Party complainant filed counter.  It was heard on 24/07/2023.

     So point for consideration is whether complaint is barred by limitation.

     As per complaint he purchased the stabilizer on 14/03/2013warranty is for two years complaint shall be filed within two years.

     Section 69: Limitation period.

1. “69 (1) District commission, the state Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
2. Not with standing anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the specified in sub- section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the state Commission, or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint with in such period.
3. Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, records its reason for condoning such delay.

     So Commission is empowered to condone such delay on recording its reasons.

          The complainant so far did not file any petition to condone the delay in filing the complaint.  No averments in the complaint explaining when cause of action arise nor any prayer in the complaint to condone the delay in filing the complaint sufficient cause is not pleaded nor proved nothing further has to be done.  The complaint to be dismissed on the ground alone.  No reason given for not filing complaint within the statutory period and hence complaint is dismissed.    In the result complaint is dismissed.

      Sd/-                                                                                               Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                      Assistant Registrar

Ps/