DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 05/8/2021
CC/129/2021
V.T.Ahammed,
S/o.Kareem Rawther,
Shobha Marbles,
18th Mile, Ottapalam
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.Vinod K Kayanat)
Vs
- The Manager
Malabar Watches Pvt.Ltd.
40/515, 5th Floor,
Malabar Cochin Arcade Pvt.Ltd.
MG Road, Ernakulam – 682 011
- The Manager,
Malabar Gold & Diamonds,
Malabar Fort, Gandhi Bazar Road,
Santhi Nagar, Sultanpet,
Palakkad – 678 001 -Opposite parties
(By Adv.Santhosh T.)
O R D E RONP R E L I M I N A R Y I S S U E
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Briefly stated, complaint pleadings are that he handed over his Rado Wrist Watch for repairing to the 2nd opposite party on 27/11/2017. After handing over, he had been bed ridden for 1½ years due to rheumatism. Post recovery he approached the 2nd opposite party and sought for his watch. But the opposite party failed to handover the same. Thereafter, during May 2020, the opposite party informed the complainant that the watch was taken by somebody in the name of the complainant. The complainant, aggrieved by the loss of his watch, has filed this complaint seeking appropriate reliefs.
- The opposite party filed version submitting that since the complainant was known to the administration of the opposite parties, they had handed over the watch after availing his signature in the register maintained by them without insisting for original receipt. The complaint is barred by limitation and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
- Since there seemed to be merit in the contention of the opposite parties with regard to the plea of bar of limitation, the question of limitation was also framed as one of the 5 issues. Since this question hits at the maintainability of the complaint itself, it was taken up as the preliminary issue to be argued.
- Counsel for the complainant argued that post 27/11/2017, he was laid up with rheumatism for over 1 ½ years. Thereafter he made enquiries. No reply was forthcoming. During May 2020 he was informed by the opposite party that his watch was taken by someone.
- The complainant has not produced any documents to prove that he was laid up with rheumatism for over 1 ½ years. Further he had also not filed any application at the time of filing of this complaint seeking condonation of delay under Section 69 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking leave to file the complaint overlooking the delay. No documentary evidence was also filed by the complainant to prove that he had undergone treatment for rheumatism, warranting continuous bed rest.
- Even as per the pleadings, the cause of action arose on 27/11/2017 when the wrist watch delivered and on 3/4/2021 when the complainant caused issuance of a lawyer’s notice to opposite party. It is a well settled preposition of law that issuance of lawyer’s notice will not give raise to a cause of action or extension of the period of limitation granted by a statue. We also find it difficult to digest the case of the complainant that the opposite party informed the complainant during May 2020 that the watch was handed over to some other person as this period is covered under the lock down imposed by the Government during the spread of Covid 19.
- Hence, we hold that the complaint is barred by limitation. The same is therefore dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 29th day of November, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.