District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 349/2018
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
31.08.2018 19.09.2018 28.03.2022
Complainant/s :- Sanjoy Bhattacharjee, S/o. Late Shyamal Bhattacharjee,
7A, Domestic Area, Dakhineswar, P.O. Alambazar,
Pin-700035, P.S. Belghoria
=Vs=
O.P/s :- 1.The Manager, Videocon Industries Ltd,
M/a, Tekcare India Pvt. Ltd, 15Km Stone, Aurangabad,
Paithan Road, Village Chitegaon, Tuluka Paithan,
Dist- Aurangabad-431105.
2. The Manager, Paul & Company,
44, Old Nimta Road, Belghoria, Pin-700056,
P.S. Belghoria.
3. The Manager, Great Easterm Trading Co,
277/2/1, B.T. Road (Sinthimore), Kolkata-700036,
P.S. Baranagar.
P R E S E N T :- Shri Debasis Mukhopadhyay………..President.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw ………………… Member.
Judgment
This is a complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant stated that he purchased a 6 litre water heater of Kenstar Model on 17.10.2013 for Rs. 4,800/- from O.P. No.3 with warranty for a period of 24 months. On 16.12.2017 the water heater was repaired by O.P. No.2 charging Rs. 408/-. On the very next day it was found not to be functioning properly. On 10.01.2018 on the advice of O.P. No.2 the complainant deposited the said water heater to the O.P. No.2 to return the water heater but in vain. Then finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case for refund of Rs. 4,800/- with interest and the compensation and litigation cost.
O.P. No.3 filed written version to contest the case and denied the allegations of the complainant. The O.P. No. 3 stated that heater was purchased on 17.10.2013 and the complaint was filed on 31.08.2018 after expiry of 5 years and as such the case is not maintainable.
Contd/-2
C.C. No. 349/ 2018
:: 2 ::
It is also contended that the case was filed with frivolous grounds and the contesting O.P was not responsible and the O.P prayed for dismissal of the case.
From the contentions of the parties it is found that the points for consideration are whether the case is maintainable or barred by limitation or not and whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
At the time of hearing none appeared for the complainant to argue the case. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.3 submitted that this case was hopelessly barred by limitation and the case was not maintainable and the case was filed more than 5 years after the purchase. He also submitted that on the merit also the complainant failed to prove his case to get any relief in this case.
Considering the contentions made in the complaint, written version, and the documents filed, we find that the complainant has actually filed this case 5 years after purchase of the water heater. It is admitted by the complainant that the warrantee was for the period of 24 months from the date of purchase. Therefore, warrantee period is clearly up to 17.10.15 that 24 months after the purchase. But the complainant contended that the water heater was repaired on 16.17.2017 more than 4 years after date of purchase. Thus we find that there is reason in the submission of the O.P that the case is actually barred by limitation and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Hence,
Ordered
that the complaint case being No. 349/2018 is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by
President
Member President
