Order-27.
Date-29/12/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant in short is that he had purchased a 3+1+1 Juliet Sofa Set, Classic model, made of full leather from the O.P. on 07/09/2008 for a price of Rs.1,45,000/-. O.P. had provided life time replacement guarantee for the said sofa-set against any kind of damage and defect of leather. In the month of Sept.-2013 it was found that the said sofa-set became damaged and the leather of the sofa set was also damaged because of its poor quality. The complainant immediately called the O.P. to replace the same as the O.P. provided life time guarantee for the said sofa-set. O.P. thereafter on 16/09/2013 had taken back the said sofa set with the assurance to replace the same with a new one within 7 days but the O.P. after lapse several months did not turn up to deliver the new sofa set. The complainant on several occasions called the O.P. demanding delivery of the said sofa set but O.P. did not pay any heed to such demand. The complainant finding no other alternative sent a legal notice dated 20/04/2015 and caused service of the same upon the O.P. but to no good. The complainant has alleged deficiency of service against the O.Ps. Hence, this case.
O.P.-1 has not contested the case and the case has proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.-1.
O.P.-2 has appeared in this case and contested the case in filing W.V. contending inter alia that the he is one of the Directors of K.B.K. Mega Mart Pvt. Ltd. and is an added O.P. in this case. It is stated that this O.P. is engaged in carrying on business of selling / trading interior products of various brands since long with an unblemished record. It is also stated that the complainant had purchased the sofa set in question on 07/09/2008 from the shop of the added O.P. but the added O.P. never issued any kind of life time replacement guarantee in favour of the complainant as against the said sofa set. It is also stated that warranty or guarantee card for any product sold is issued by the manufacturing company i.e. Stanley Boutique, Bangalore and this added O.P. has just been a trader for the said sofa set to the complainant. It is also stated that the sofa set in question became damaged as alleged in the month of Sept.-2013 i.e. almost after five years from the date of purchase and as such the instant complaint is baseless and harassive and is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that this added O.P. till date never met with the complainant after selling the sofa set in question, neither he had taken the sofa set from the complainant at any point of time. It is also alleged that this O.P. has not also received any legal notice from the end of the complainant. This O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether the case barred by limitation ?
- Whether the O.Ps. are deficient in rendering service to the complainant ?
Decision with Reasons
We have travelled over the documents on record, namely, Xerox copy of purchase receipt dated 08/09/2008, Xerox copy of alleged receipt of acknowledgement of Sofa-set by letter dated 16/09/2013, Xerox copy of legal notice filed from the side of the complainant.
It appears that the added O.P. has sold the sofa set belonging to the brand of Stanley Boutique being manufacturer on 08/09/2008. It does not appear from the purchase receipt that the added O.P. or O.P.-1 issued any lifetime replacement guarantee to the complainant for the sofa set in question. It is not also understood whether any company can give lifetime replacement guarantee to anybody for any of the article or furniture. The invoice of the sofa set does not reflect about any kind of guarantee and / or warrantee. It is also transpiring from the documents on record that the sofa set in question was / became damaged in the month of Sept.-2013 i.e. almost after five years from the date of purchase. It is also stated by the complainant that he gave the sofa set in question to O.P.-2 on 16/09/2013 for inspection. We find that the document (i.e. letter dated 16/09/2013) is on a plain typed paper and it does not bear by any seal of the company of O.P.-2. O.P.-2 has categorically stated in its W.V. that he had neither met the complainant after selling of the sofa set in question, neither he had taken back the sofa of the complainant at any point of time and as such question of replacing the same with a new one does arise. It also appears strange that the complainant gave the sofa set to O.P.-2 way back on 16/09/2013 and slept over the matter for years together and has filed the case on 07/01/2016, that too, after a lapse of more than two years. We think that the case is also barred under limitation as emvisaged in the C. P. Act,1986 as amended.
It is alleged by the complainant that he gave a legal notice to the O.Ps. dated 20/04/2015. We are afraid there is no track report before us filed from the complainant that he caused service of such legal notice upon the O.Ps. when it is specifically alleged by the added O.P. that he never received any legal notice from the end of the complainant at no point of time. Moreover, we think that mere sending of a notice after such a long lapse of time does not constitute continuation of cause of action as alleged by the complainant. We find that the sofa set was purchased way back on 08/09/2008 i.e. 8 years back and it was damaged as per the version of the complainant in September-2013 and the case is filed on 07/01/2016 without any petition for condonation of delay. We think the case is hopelessly barred by limitation.
In result, the case merits no success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.-2 and ex-parte against O.P.-1.
No order as to cost.
