West Bengal

Bankura

CC/56/2019

Arun Kumar Sau - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop Rainbow Electronics, Kuchkuchia Road Bankura, 722101 - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANKURA

Consumer  Complaint  No.56/2019

Date of Filing :    11.12.2019. 

Before:

1. Samiran Dutta                              Ld. President.      

2. Rina Mukherjee                          Ld. Member. 

3. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.

For the Complainant: Self

For the O.P. Self

Complainant                                                                                                          

Sri Arun Kumar Sau, S/o Late Lakshmi Kanta Sau, Barakalitala, Harihar Sarani, Bankura - 722101 .

Opposite Party  

1. Proprietor, Rainbow Electronics, Kuchkuchia Road, Bankura – 722101.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Texmo Industries, G.N. Mills Post, Mettupalayam Road,

     Coimbatore – 641029.

3. Manager, CST – Service, Texmo Industires, G.N.Mills Post, Mettulapalayam Road,

     Coimbatore – 641029.

4. Manager, Servicing Centre, Texmo Industries, Kolkata.

 

JUDGEMENT          

                                                                                                                                                 

Dated:10-02-2023

The Complainant’s case is that he purchased one Water Pump set Model No.HCS4025SJ, Motor Rating 0.37 KW/0.50 HP from O.P. No.1 being the Dealer of O.P. No.2 & 3 Texmo Industries on 20-07-2012 on payment of Rs.4,300/- under receipt.

The Complainant found fault with the pump set as the consumption of electricity was much higher than expected because of fact that the Kilo Watt as shown in the pump set is 0.37 but actually it is 0.87 Watt approximately.

The Complainant took up the matter with all the O.P.s on 20-12-2017 after long five years for redressal of his grievances but nothing has been done so far. Hence the Complainant has approached this Commission by filing this case in 2019 praying for compensation and re-imbursement of consumption of extra electric charges.                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                                     Contd………p/2

 Page: 2

The O.P. No.1/Dealer did not contest the case by filing any written version but the O.P. No.2 & 3 being the Manufacturing company filed a joint written version denying all the material allegations made in the complaint and disowning their liability in this case contending inter alia that the complainant after use of the pump set for about five years cannot ask for such reliefs as it is barred by limitation.

In support of the complaint case a plethora of documents have been produced before the Commission along with written argument and on the other hand O.P.s  try to impress upon the Commission stating all the facts in the written argument.

The Commission has gone through and considered the submission, contention on both sides including the documents placed before the Commission.

Before entering into the merit of the case it is necessary to determine whether the case is at all maintainable being time barred. The Cause of action arose in the Year 2012 after purchase of the pump set in question but the complainant brought the matter to the notice of the O.P.s in the Year 2017, only after long five years.

The grievances with regard to the pump set as ventilated by the complainant arose immediately after purchase of the pump set in 2012 and so the cause of action commences from that time but the instant case has been filed in the Year 2019 beyond the period of limitation i.e. two years as provided in Section 69 (1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the cause of action cannot arise in the Year 2017 when the complainant took up the matter with the O.P.s for redressal of his grievances. Reply by the O.P.s in 2018 cannot give rise to a fresh cause of action. No prayer for condonation of delay has been made before this Commission by the complainant explaining the cause of delay for such long five years to file the instant case. The prayer for condontion of delay dated: 23-12-2019 which is on record is of no help to the complainant as it pertains to the condonation of delay since 2017.           

                                                                                                                                                                           Contd………….p/3

                                                                                                             Page: 3

The nature and character of the case and relief sought for gives rise to a particular cause of action and it is never continuing in nature. So the case is barred by limitation in view of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Apart from this, if we go into the merit of the case, the complainant could not establish any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s as the complainant purchased the pump of his own choice with Motor rating 0.37 KW / 0.50 HP as shown in the specification and there was no misrepresentation or unfair trade practice committed by the O.P.s Excessive consumption of electricity for such Pump set cannot be considered as consumer dispute between the parties.

Accordingly the complainant has not made out any to succeed against any of the O.P.s

Hence it is ordered……

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Judgement free of cost.

 

____________________                   _________________           _________________

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT           HON’BLE MEMBER       HON’BLE MEMBER