State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Managing Director, M/S.Master ... vs K.Janardhan, No.8/113A, Periyar ... on 25 August, 2011
THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
THE TAMILNADU STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
(BENCH
II)
Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A.,
M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member,
Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., Member.
F.A.No. 303/2010
[Against order in C.C.No.121/2007
on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North)]
THURSDAY, THE 25th DAY
OF AUGUST 2011.
1. The
Managing Director,
M/s.Master Investment & Marketing (P)
Ltd.,
127, Brick Kiln Road,
Purasawalkam, Chennai -7.
2. The
Managing Director,
M/s.Maharaja Appliances Ltd.,
57, Nangloi Extension, Phase II-C,
Nazafgarh
Road, Nangloi,
New
Delhi 110 041. .. Appellants/Opposite parties
Vs.
K.Janardhan,
No.8/113A,
Periyar Pathai West,
Choolaimedu,
Chennai
600 094. ..
Respondent/Complainant
The appeal coming before us for
hearing finally on 09.08.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and
perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District
Forum, this Commission made the following order :-
Counsel
for the Appellants/Opposite parties : M/s.V.Balaji,
Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant :
M/s.G.G.Pillai, Advocate.
ORDER
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The opposite parties are the appellants.
2. The complainant filed complaint against the opposite parties claiming direction for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the loss caused, medical expenses, injury, damages etc., with costs for the deficiency of service.
3. Complainant purchased one water purifier on 10.5.02 for Rs.5,740/- from one Sai Enterprises which was subsequently taken over by the 1st opposite party and from the date of purchase the water purifier was not functioning in spite of the opposite party arranged for their technician repairing and the defects were not rectified fully and asked the complainant to wait for replacement of spares as there was no ready stock with them and thereby on 20.12.2004. The complainant issued a legal notice and subsequently come forward with this complaint.
4. Before the District Forum, the opposite parties remained exparte and on the basis of materials of complainant side the District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing inconvenience and mental agony.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties come forward with this appeal and in the grounds of appeal among other things it is contended that the complaint is barred by limitation and no petition was filed under Sec.24(A) Sub Clause (2) for the delay to be condoned and the legal notice was issued after the expiry of warranty period and under the legal notice claim was made for Rs.50,000/- and in the complaint amount was made for Rs.1,00,000/- and hence the complaint to be dismissed.
6. The Respondent/complainant contended since the complainant was awaiting for the services to be made as promised by getting the spare parts and as there was no response for more than the period sufficiently awaited the legal notice was issued and it was not amount to a bar of limitation, since it is a continued cause of action.
7. While considering both sides arguments, averments and contentions that it is not in dispute that the complainant purchased a water purifier from one Sai Enterprises on 10.5.02 for Rs.5,740/- as per Exhibit B1 bill in which the name of the customer mentioned as P.Chandran, C/o.K.Janardhan who is the complainant in this case and as per the warranty card Exhibit A2 in it, it is mentioned that repairs to be rectified within a period of one year up to 9.5.03 and the complainant has stated that from the beginning it was not functioning properly and as per Exhibit A3 the complaint was made on 2.9.02 to the Sai Enterprises for which on 4.9.02 the service branch has given rectifications report and stated as there was no stock of PCB assembly to attend the repair and they are agreed to extend the unexpired warranty period after necessary repairs.
From this letter even though it is stated that they agreed to extend the warranty period the complainant was not able to produce the extended warranty and a telegram was sent as per Exhibit A4 to the opposite parties to rectify the defects or to proceed for legal action dated 26.3.02. From these details the first repair reported on 2.9.02 as per Exhibit A3 and as per the letter Exhibit A3, the first report was made on 2.9.02 for which a reply dated 4.9.02 was found along with Exhibit A3 and from both dates the complaint should have been filed on or before 4.9.04 and the legal notice was issued on 26.3.04 and on perusal of the complaint it was presented on 11.12.06 only before the District Forum which was subsequently numbered in February 2007. So it is clearly proved that the complaint is barred by limitation for more than two years from 4.9.04 and the contention of the complainant that since the opposite party did not rectify the defects which is amount to continuing cause of action will not be an acceptable one and mere issuance of legal notice will not give any time limit for cause of action as per the reported decisions which reported in 1999 CPR 430. Further on merits the complainant did not return the defective water purifier to the opposite party till date of complaint and he is keeping the same with him and has not prayed for replacement or for the cost of the same in the complaint instead he has come forward to claim Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the alleged defects which goes to show as the complainant has not come forward with clean hands in this case and thereby the complaint itself deserves to be dismissed as no merits and the District Forum wrongly allowed the complaint without considering all the facts in detail and thereby the order of the District Forum deserves to be set aside.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North) in C.C.No.121/2007, dated 30.11.2007 and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
9. The Registry is directed to hand over the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made by way of mandatory deposit, to the appellant, duly discharged.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/aka// Water Purifier