IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Prethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the 2^nd day of  December  2009

CC.119/2009

C.V.Rajagopalan,

‘Manas’,

Ramsadan Compound,                                     Complainant

Talap South, P.O.Kannur.

The Manger,

Incor Furniture,

Pallikunnu,                                                                    Opposite party

Kannur 4.

O R D E R

            Heard the counsel for the complainant and opposite party. The opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable since it is barred by limitation.

            It can be seen that the complainant purchased a sofa set (Indroyal Company) from the opposite party for Rs. 22,000/- on 12.6.2006. The case was filed on 15.5.09 i.e. after the expiry of two years. The case of the complainant is that after two years it was found the colour of the sofa set vanishing at certain areas and forming white patches on it. When the matter reported the opposite party turned up and checked the sofa and corrected it by which white patches were disappeared for the time being. The same problem again appeared and mater was reported to opposite party on 25.5.08 and their staff visited for repeating the rectification work as they have done earlier but the complainant did not co-operate  since he require a permanent solution. Complainant requested the opposite party replace the sofa but so far they have not taken any steps.

            Complainant has no case that there was any warranty issued by opposite party at the time of purchase of sofa. Under such circumstances complainant is obliged to file the complaint within two years of purchase.

 The decision K.K.Prabhakara & Anr., Vs.P.M.Suresh & Anr. (III (2002 CPJ 475 it was held the cause of action could arise only on the discovery of the later infirmity in the goods sold; that discovery was made only on examining the warranty card. As far as this case is concerned there is no warranty and question of examination of warranty card does not arise at all. The complaint filed on 14.5.09 almost after 3 years of purchase dt.12.6.2006 is, therefore held to be not within time. The complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation. Hence the complaint is not entertainable by the fora being barred by limitation.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

                                    Sd/-                             Sd/-                          Sd/-

President                      Member                       Member

APPENDIX

Nil

/forwarded by order

Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.