K S DABAS Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR CHHABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant purchased an x-ray machine Model Gomaz-1005 for a sum of Rs. 88,000 which was delivered to him on 9.8.1990; part of the goods had already been supplied on 18.6.1990. The complaint of the respondent/complainant was, that from the very first day of its instal, the machinery failed to give its accurate results. Several complaints were made but yet no action was taken, hence dissatisfied with the conduct of the petitioner, the respondent / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. It is pertinent to note that this is a second round of litigation as during the first round of litigation when the matter came before this Commission, this Commission vide its order dated 17.4.1997 remanded the case to District Forum, Kaithal (Haryana) for hearing the complaint de novo. The Distric Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to replace the entire machine along with x-ray tube or pay back the amount along with interest @ 12% from the date of purchase till the date of realisation along with compensation of Rs. 25,000. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission basically on two grounds, namely, the complaint is barred by limitation and secondly, the machine was purchased for commercial purposes. The State Commission after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal, hence this revision petition before us.

(3.) Before us also the same pleas have been taken. After hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, there is no disputing the fact that machine was delivered in June/August 1990, and the complaint has been filed for the first time in 21.3.1994. Even though no time limit was under the Consumer Protection Act, but as per law prevailing at that time the period was taken to be 3 years from the cause of action, for filing a complaint as per the Indian Limitation Act. Hence prima facie the complaint appears to be barred by limitation, but in this particular case, the last document is a telegram dated 5.2.1993, which reads as follows : "Your machine shall complete by Sunday. Kindly come on Sunday and inspect your machine before delivery."