By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties to return Rs.21,900/- being the cost of water filter with 18% interest, to return Rs.1,560/- to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant.
2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased a water purifier from 2nd Opposite Party which is manufactured by 1st Opposite Party and got a service contract from 3 years by paying Rs.2,950/-. The Opposite parties have assured the Complainant that the Opposite Parties will replace the cartridge and candle of water purifier free of cost in every year till 2014. The 3rd Opposite Party replaced the cartridge and filter in 2013, but 2014 service not given. The Opposite parties neglected their duty to replace the cartridge and candle. Hence the Complainant could not use the water purifier during 2012 and 2014 onwards. The Complainant had a loss of Rs.30 per day. In that account a loss of Rs.21,900/ for 2 years had occurred. On 28.08.2016, the Opposite Parties on request serviced the water purifier and charged Rs.1,560/-. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of 1st Opposite Party, 1st Opposite Party stated that the Complainant not produced any document to prove that when and where he had purchased the water purifier and for what price. The defect to the water purifier is stated in the complaint. The 1st Opposite Party never service the cartridge and candle of water purifier free of cost. The Opposite Parties not gave 3 years warranty to the purifier. On replacement, 1 year warranty is usually given. Hence service charge of Rs.1,560/- is received by the Opposite Party. There is no deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties. 2nd Opposite Party not filed version. 3rd Opposite parties name is deleted by the Complainant.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether the Complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties?
3. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Opposite Party's witness is examined as OPW1. Ext.A1 is the invoice cum receipt for the contract service. Ext.A2 is the service request activity report dated 28.08.2016. Ext.A3 is the service request activity report dated 31.05.2013. As per Ext.A1 contract, the Complainant paid Rs.2,950/- towards service contract for the period 07.06.2011 to 07.06.2014. On the basis of Ext.A1 the Complainant got service and the candle is replaced on 06.06.2011. On 30.05.2013 also, the Complainant got service. The case of Complainant is that the Complainant did not get service for the year 2014 ie 07.06.2014. The Opposite Party failed to give service for that period and later on 28.08.2016, the Opposite party gave service by charging Rs.1,560/- from the Complainant. The Complaint is filed on 30.09.2016 without condonation of delay petition. The Opposite Party contended that the complaint is time barred. The cause of action starts from the date of 07.06.2014 from which the Complainant did not get service. But the Complaint is filed only on 30.09.2016 ie after 2 years from the date of cause of action started. Why the Complainant waited till that time is not explained anywhere. The actual purchase date, time, place etc not stated in the complaint. If cause of action is continuing, the Complainant should file the complaint within 2 years from the date of starting of cause of action. The ruling by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in CPR Part-2 2017 April, the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that the Complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation where cause of action is continuing. But this ruling is not applicable here. Because, the Complainant could not file the complaint within 2 years from the date of continuing cause of action. In a ruling reported in 2016(1) CPR 735(NC), the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Lt. Col. Amrik Singh V/S Government of Panjab & Others, the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that time barred Complaint is not maintainable. In another ruling, the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in (2015(4) CPR 116 NC) Oriental Bank of Commerce V/S P.S. Ramakrishna ruled that Consumer Forum under an obligation not to admit consumer complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which cause of action arisen. In another ruling (2015(2) CPR 22 NC) the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in D.K Jain and others V/S M/S Sathya Builders ruled that Consumer forum have no option but to dismiss the complaint where complaint beyond limitation period. Here in this case, the application for delay condonation is filed and it is allowed. But on verifying the case on merit of the case, there is absolute delay in filing complaint which the Forum cannot condone. In this case delay is condoned for the time being but no substantial evidence is produced thereafter to save the limitation. On an over all evaluation of the evidence and records, the Forum found that the complaint is time barred. Since point No.1 is found against the Complainant, the other points need not be answered.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 10th day of May 2017.
Date of Filing:03.10.2016.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witnesses for the complainant:
PW1. A.V. Thariyath. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties :
OPW1. Jinesh kumar. Officer, Eureka Forbes, Kozhikode.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Invoice Cum Receipt. dt:07.06.2011.
A2. Service Request Activity Report. dt:28.08.2016.
A3. Service Request Activity Report. dt:31.05.2013.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties:
Nil.
