10.04.2024

Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

1. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant purchased the Electric Scooty Model Polo Pony (Red) on 16.03.2021 with three year warranty on battery from OP.  
2. It is alleged by the complainant that within six months of the purchase the alleged vehicle has battery issue, the range of the scooty started decreasing day by day, there were a starting problem and as such complainant wrote an email dated 31.08.2021to OP to rectify the defects in the vehicle but no response was received. The complainant further sent email dated 31.08.2021, 13.09.2021 to OP but all in vain.
3. The complainant finally approached showroom of OP co. and requested it to provide the warranty service assured by the company for the battery but the dealer of the showroom denied the service on the ground that they have changed the dealership. Dealership of Polo company is no more available with them. It is further alleged that even after repeated request the dealer of OP did not provide any assistance or remedy to the issues in question. It is further alleged by the complainant that denial of warranty service by OP company amounts to deficiency in service on its part, hence, this complaint.

4.          The present complaint case is on admission stage. We have heard the complainant on admission as well as on limitation and have perused the record.

5.          It is submitted by complainant that the he had wrote several emails to the OP to rectify the battery issue and other defects in the scooty but the OP did not respond to the email thereafter the complainant visited to the service centre of OP but there also neither any  satisfactory reply was given  nor the alleged free warranty services was provided to him, hence, the cause of action is continuous one and the present complaint is well within limitation.

6.          Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the scooty on 16.03.2021. The complainant has placed on record the copy of email dated  16.03.2021, 28.08.2021 31.08.2021 and 13.09.2021. The complainant failed to place on record any documentary evidence in respect to his visit to the service centre of OP for getting the necessary repairing work carried out. Moreover, the last email sent by complainant to OP is of 13.09.2021. The complainant failed to place on record any document which shows that from 13.09.2021 the complainant have any grievance in respect to the functioning of the scooty in question and he had approached the service centre of OP in this respect, hence, in our considered opinion the substantive cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 13.09.2021.

7.       Let us peruse the relevant provision in respect of limitation provided under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

As per section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019: -

1. The District Forum, the state commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1). A complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the state commission or the National Comission , as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission , the State Commission, as the case may be records its reason form condoning such delay.

8.      A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the complaint should be preferred within a period of two years of the accrual of cause of action.

9.      Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the scooty on 16.03.2021, hence, the first cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 16.03.2021. The complainant has sent the final email with OP in respect to the defects in the vehicle on 13.09.2021, hence, the substantive cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 13.09.2021. The complainant ought to have file the present complaint within two years of the accrual of cause of action i.e. 13.09.2023 but the complainant failed to do so. The complainant approached this Commission and filed the present complaint on 12.03.2024 i.e. after the delay of 06 months of the accrual of the substantive cause of action.

10.    In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that substantive cause of action for filing the present complaint arose 13.09.2021, the complainant ought to have file the present complaint within two year of the accrual of cause of action i.e. 13.09.2023. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 12.03.2024 i.e after the delay of 06 months, the present complaint is therefore, barred by limitation, hence, dismissed.

 File be consigned to record room.

11. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  10.04.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                              MEMBER