Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

          We heard Ms.Rashmi Manne, Advocate for the respondent.  We have perused the impugned judgement delivered by District Consumer Forum, Nashik in consumer complaint No.231/2007.  By the said judgement dated 15/05/2009, complaint has been dismissed.  As such, org. complainant has filed this appeal.

          It was the case of the complainant that he had purchased Silpaulin plastic cover for his Farm Pond on 30/09/2004 for amount of `5,24,999/-.  While selling the said Silpaulin plastic cover, O.P./respondent herein had allegedly given warranty/guarantee that the Silpaulin would be in proper condition at least for 5 years.  He purchased it and put it in his field.  But, according to him within few days, there was leakage to the Silpaulin and the product, he has purchased proved to be useless and his huge amount had gone in the drain and hence, by filing consumer complaint, he had sought `70 Lakhs towards cost and compensation.

          Notice was issued to the O.P.  O.P. filed written version and contested the matter.  It was the contention of the O.P. that complaint was hopelessly time-barred.  Second contention of the O.P. was that they had not given warranty/guarantee of 5 years as alleged by the complainant in his complaint and complainant had not produced any warranty or guarantee card issued by the O.P. in support of his claim.  It was further contended by O.P./respondent herein in the written version that complainant had used said Silpaulin cover for more than 3 years and thereafter, he has filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service.  Hence, it was prayed that complaint should be dismissed with cost. 

          Forum below by the impugned judgement dismissed the complaint.  While dismissing the complaint, Forum below observed that the complainant had not produced on record any warranty or guarantee card issued by the respondent herein.  Forum below also mentioned in its order that the complainant had not used Silpaulin cover properly and that resulted into development of pores to the said Silpaulin cover and it was fault of the complainant for which O.P./respondent herein should not be made liable.  Forum below primarily dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no warranty or guarantee card produced by the complainant in support of his claim.  Forum below also found that the complainant had not adduced any expert evidence to establish that said Silpaulin cover developed pores on its own and not because of faulty use by the complainant.  Therefore, Forum below was pleased to dismiss the complaint.  Hence, complainant himself filed this appeal.

          Today, at the time of hearing on admission, appellant is absent.  We have decided to dispose of this appeal by carefully perusing the impugned judgement passed by the District Consumer Forum dismissing his complaint.  We are concurring with the findings recorded by the Forum below primarily for want of warranty or guarantee card and secondly, there is no expert evidence to show that Silpaulin cover supplied by the O.P./respondent was defective in any manner and it had not given requisite service as expected by the complainant/consumer.  Furthermore, we are finding that the complaint as filed by the complainant was absolutely barred by limitation. 

          The complainant had purchased said Silpaulin on 30/09/2004 which is clearly found out from Invoice Bill which is appended at page-25 of the appeal compilation.  So, within 2 years from that date, he should have filed consumer complaint.  So, he was required to file consumer complaint on or before 29/09/2006, whereas, this consumer complaint came to be filed on 15/10/2007.  Thus, certainly, after period of limitation complaint has been filed.  Copy of complaint was not appended to the appeal memo.  So, we took from Counsel for the respondent a copy of complaint filed by the complainant in the Forum below and from the said copy it is clear that the complaint was filed on 15/10/2007 and not within 2 years from the date of purchase.  In the consumer complaint at Para 25, complainant mentioned that cause of action lastly arose on 06/01/2006 when defects were found and when the O.P. committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  This cannot be a cause of action for the simple reason that, cause of action accrues to the complainant from the date of purchase of Silpaulin and not from the day he noticed certain pores in the Silpaulin cover, which had used for creating Farm Pond.  So, he had not filed consumer complaint with condonation of delay application.  We are satisfied that the consumer complaint as filed by the complainant was barred by limitation.  Moreover, the test report placed on record by the complainant, which is annexed at page-39&40 of appeal compilation was issued by Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, attached to the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Govt. of India.  Said Laboratory Certificate has been issued to Unnati Mala Shivdongari, at Post-Vadner, Taluka Malegaon, Dist. Nashik.  We do not know whether this test report pertains to the Silpaulin purchased by the complainant as per Invoice dated 30/09/2004. 

          In any view of the matter, we are finding that the order of dismissal passed by the Forum below is just, proper and it does not call for any interference.  Appeal is devoid of any substance.  Hence, we pass the following order :-

                   -: ORDER :-

1.       Appeal stands dismissed.

2.       No order as to costs.

3.       Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.