AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal has arisen out of the order dated 15.7.1992 of the State Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur allowing the complaint.
THE facts are not in dispute. The appellant supplied on the basis of an acceptance of tender No. P/T/81-82 dated 17.7.1982. Tricone Rock Roller Bits, manufactured by M/s. Precision Drilling Equipments (India) Private Ltd., Noida on the terms and conditions contained in the tender letter. The bits were delivered against Invoice No. 13 dated 21.8.1982. The Complainant sent the bits to the site for trial under super-f vision of Assistant Engineer. He was informed on 6.10.1983 that the bits were jammed after drilling 1.5 MT, 4.5 MT respectively and they could not free them after making good efforts. The defects were duly communicated to the Appellant who in his letter dated 5.10.1984 stated that the manufacturer had agreed to replace the defective bits and requested the Complainant to send the defective bits to the factory of the Manufacturer who would replace the bits. The Complainant insisted that the Appellant should deposit the amount of Rs. 1,15,741.64 drawn by him or deposit two fresh R.R. bits. Later on the Complainant asked Appellant for Bank guaranty of Rs. 1,16,000/- in favour of the Executive Engineer, Drilling and Handpump Division, Jodhpur so that the defective bits could be sent and an alternative offer was given that if this was not acceptable, then the Appellant may deposit two fresh R.R. bits and the bank guarantee would be returned to the Opposite Party on receipt of the bits duly repaired/re-conditioned. The Appellant requested the Complainant to send the bits for his replacement to the manufacturer as this proposal was not acceptable. The Appellant finally wrote letter dated 17th October, 1986 assuring that the defects would be removed or the bits would be replaced by the manufacturer. The Complainant wrote letter dated 19.10.1987 and againon21.11.1987 to the Appellant for replacement of the defective bits but without any response. The complaint was ultimately filed under Section 17(a)(l) of the Consumer Protection Act I and sent to the State Commission by post. The complaint was received by the State Commission on 23rd July, 1990 seeking replacement of the two bits or refund of the price amount to Rs.U5741.69/-. The complaint is hopelessly barred by the time. The bits were delivered against Invoice No. 13 dated 21st August, 1984 and the final offer of repair or replacement was on 17th October, 1986. The complaint was how-lever filed on 23rd July, 1990.
IN Agnes D'' Mellow Canara Bank & Ant. 1(1992) CPJ 335, the view taken by this Commission is: "The Limitation Act in terms does not apply to the proceedings before the Consumer Protection Forums and this Commission has been applying the rules incorporated in the Act only on the ground that it will not be conducive to public policy and public good to have stale claims brought up for adjudication after lapse of long periods of time thereby depriving the public of a sense of security and certainty that old matters which have become settled and stale by long lapse of time will not be allowed to be re-opened."
IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside and the Complaint Petition is dismissed as barred by time leaving the parties to bear their own costs.