SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

         Complainant filed this complaint  U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019  for getting Rs.452970/-  towards compensation .

   Opposite party filed version denied all the allegations raised against him.

  The present petition is filed by OP for hearing the maintainability as the preliminary point.  The contentions in the petitions  are that the transaction  between the complainant  and the OP alleged as per the complaint was in the year 2015.  Thereafter the above complaint was instituted before  this court in the year 2021.  That is after the  elapse of 6 year from the date of purchase.  Moreover there is no specific date mentioned after the year 2015 as to the exact cause of action to institute the above complaint.  The notice which was sent to OP is also silent as to the date of cause of action.  The complaint before the consumer court  shall not admit unless it is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action arisen.  Hence this petition.

   Complainant filed objection stating that he purchased the plywood and hardware materials in different dates in the year 2015.  Moreover the OP firm assured the complainant that the materials sold to the complainant was  high quality and will long last more than 15 years and also termite resistant and waterproof.  But actually the material  sold to the complainant was very poor quality and due to this dust started to  oozing out from the plywood and other materials fixed in the wall, kitchen cabinet and ceiling.  Thereafter in 12/8/2021 the complainant contacted the OP and in 15/8/2021   a technician from the OP firm visited the house of the complainant and initially assured that they are ready to  replace the entire items.  But nothing happened.  Thereafter the above , complainant sent a lawyer notice on 30/9/2021 and the OP replied on 18/10/2021 stating false allegations.  In the reply notice the OP admitted that their team conducted a scientific study ie on 15/8/2021.  But even now the  dust is oozing  out from the plywood and other materials.  The above petition is filed unnecessarily to lag the case and to hinder the inspection of the expert.  Hence the complaint

    Considering the contentions in the petition and facts  of the case, it is evident that the transaction between complainant and OP has taken place in 2015  and  the case has been filed in 2021.  Since the  limitation period of 2 years as per Consumer Protection Act is elapsed, this complaint is not maintainable.

   Hence the petition to hear the question of maintainability is allowed.  Complaint stands dismissed.

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR