Order No.  3  dt.  11/12/2017

        Fact of the case according to the complainant in brief is that the complainant approached M/s Senco Gold Ltd,132 Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata-700004 (op) on 17.08.2012 to sell two types of gold ornaments (old). On selling the old ornaments complainant wanted to purchase new ornaments of gold with Hall Mark. OP after collecting the gold from the old ornaments issued purchase memo by crediting the customer A/c no cus -0159696 dt17.08.2012 with an amount of Rs78,672.00. Thereafter, according to the choice of the complainant, op sold two ornaments under tax invoice no.10054319064 dt 21.08.2012 amounting to Rs68135.06, where in op realized the billing amount by adjusting the credited amount retained in the customer a/c of the complainant generated on 17.08.2012.

            Complainant raised question against the different rates of gold fixed/charged for 22 carat gold in the two transactions made by the complainant, one as a seller of goods and another as a purchaser of  another goods and issued a letter against the op in registered/speed post on 17.10.2012. But, according to the complainant , op did not respond to the question raised by the complainant. Finding no other alternative complainant filed this complainant after 5 (five) years on 27.11.2017.

            As the complaint case has been filed after the lapse of limitation  period of 2 (two) years. As such this forum can not admit the complaint. As such, we hold that the complaint is barred by limitation and is dismissed in limini.