National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

K S Chaudhari Presiding Member

Harish Kumar – Petitioner

Versus

M/s Premier Ltd and Anr – Respondents

Revision Petition No. 4769 of 2012                                              Decided on 04.02.2013

(From the order dated 20.09.2012 in Appeal No. 1082/12 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 15,17,19, 21 and 24A – Automobile – Manufacturing defect – Complaint dismissed by Fora below – Complaint was filed after two years whereas complaint had to be filed within a period of two years u/s 24A – Petitioner could not satisfy how complaint is still within limitation – Complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect in vehicle – No illegality, material irregularity or infirmity in impugned order passed by State Commission.                                                                                                              (Paras 5 to 9)

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

 

Important Point

Complaint must be filed within period of limitation.

Judgement

1.K S Chaudhari Presiding Member – This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the impugned order dated 20.9.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1082/12 - Harish Kumar Vs Premier Ltd & Anr, by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing the complaint was upheld.

2.Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Petitioner purchased commercial vehicle No. HR 37-B 9084 from OP-2/Respondent-2 for a sum of Rs.3,75,000. Complainant alleged that       OP-1/Respondent-1 is the manufacturer of vehicle and further alleged that immediately after purchase of vehicle, it started giving problems. Vehicle was taken to OP-2 to do the needful and it was kept in the possession of OP-2 from 11.4.2007 to 3.7.2007, but vehicle could not be repaired as OP-2 closed the agency. Hence, Complainant filed complaint alleging deficiency. OPs contested the complaint and submitted that warranty of the vehicle was only for one year and there was no manufacturing defect in 

the vehicle and that the complaint is time barred; hence, the complaint be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint on the ground that complaint was time barred as well as the Complainant failed to prove manufacturing defects in the vehicle. On appeal, learned State Commission also upheld the order against which this revision petition has been filed.

3.Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

4.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as defects are still continuing, cause of action continues and learned State Commission and District Forum have committed error in dismissing the complaint on the ground of limitation and further submitted that as defects were not removed, petition be admitted.

5.It is admitted case of the Complainant that he left the vehicle with OP-2 on 11.4.2007 for removal of defects and vehicle remained with OP-2 for a period of 3 months, meaning thereby that defects came to the knowledge of Complainant on 11.4.2007, but the complaint was filed on 28.5.2009 after 2 years, whereas the complaint had to be filed within a period of 2 years u/s 24A of CPA and learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not satisfy how the complaint is still within limitation.

6.As far as manufacturing defects are concerned, learned District Forum rightly observed that Complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. 

7.Learned State Commission observed in its impugned order as under:

“We have gone through the impugned order and have taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and are of the view that in the instant case, it is not disputed by the Appellant that defect in his vehicle was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties on 11.4.2007, which could not be rectified by them. Despite this fact, he instituted the present complaint before the District Forum on 28.5.2009, on which date his complaint was hit by Section 24A of the CPA, 1986 wherein limitation period for filing the appeal has been prescribed as two years. As far as the alleged manufacturing defect is concerned, Appellant/Complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading some cogent and convincing evidence in the shape of some expert or automobile engineer. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or ambiguity in the impugned order, which does not call for any interference in this appeal.”

8.I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned State Commission and in such circumstances, revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

9.Consequently, revision petition filed by the Petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.

 

Copyright © 2017 FADA India. All Rights Reserved.
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU General Public License.
Federation of Automobile Dealers Associations(FADA)
Website by Carazoo