Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member Admit and heard forthwith with consent of both the parties. This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 19/03/2010 in consumer complaint No.330/2008, Shri Mahadev Jagannath Madane & Ors. V/s. M/s.Mangal Machineries & Anr., by District Consumer Forum, Solapur. Undisputed facts are that the appellant-Company’s PVC Pipeline was installed in the year 2002 by the complainant in his field for irrigation purpose. It is the case of the complainant that in the month of December 2006 a leakage in the said pipeline was noticed and therefore, crops could not be irrigated. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of dealer and the manufacturing company, this consumer complaint was filed for compensation of `4,40,000/- towards loss of crops. Forum below after hearing both the parties was pleased to grant compensation of `10,000/-, cost of `1,000/- and feeling aggrieved thereby, O.P. preferred this appeal. In the instant case, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that there is limited warranty against the manufacturing defects of one year. The complainant alleged that the warranty of 10 years was given by O.P.No.1, however, the material placed on record does not substantiate this. Therefore, contention of appellant/manufacturing Company is to be accepted in that respect. In the instant case, we asked the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/org. complainant as to what sort of evidence was led by him to show that there is breach of condition of warranty i.e. manufacturing defects in the pipes supplied. He fairly conceded that there is no evidence adduced in that respect. It may be noted here that for 4 years the pipeline was successfully used. If there was any manufacturing defect, then that would have immediately noticed. The fact that for four years without any problem PVC pipeline was used, per se, negatives the case of the complainant about alleged manufacturing defect vis-à-vis a case to invoke the warranty. Therefore, there is no service deficiency found on the part of the manufacturing company. Referring to the complaint, we find that the consumer complaint is not filed against the manufacturing company, but against the ‘General Manager’, who is, certainly, only an official and not the company itself vis-à-vis a service provider. For all these reasons, we find that the Forum below misguided itself and did not address itself to the real issues raised including issue of territorial jurisdiction but, we are not at all looking at the issue of territorial jurisdiction since in appeal, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant preferred not to press for that issue. Point of limitation is also not considered. Forum below has to address itself as to the date of cause of action and as to whether the complaint is within limitation since it is the duty of the Forum to consider the same. In the case before us, the cause of action arose when the pipes were purchased in the month of June 2002 and the consumer complaint was filed on 24/10/2008, beyond the period of 2 years and thus, barred by limitation. For all these reasons, we find that the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 19/03/2010 is quashed and set aside and in turn, consumer complaint No.330/2008 stands dismissed. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. |
