AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
None is present for the petitioner.
The petitioner has moved an application that he is suffering from Cancer and the case should be decided by the Commission itself. He has sent the written arguments.
Ms. Sheena Piplani, Advocate, R/o B-5, Lajpat Nagar -3, New Delhi - 110 024 (Mobile : 9899226924) is appointed as Amicus Curiae to conduct the case on behalf of petitioner. Registry is directed to supply a complete set of paper book to learned Amicus Curiae. She is directed to go through the file.
Registry is directed to disburse a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards out of pocket expenses, out of which Rs.5,000/- may be released alongwith the paper book and the balance on disposal of this Revision Petition.
Arguments will be heard at 1.00 p.m.
Shri Om Prakash Kulshrestha, the complainant, in this case purchased A.C. from Prop. Madhu Radios, Station Road, Morena on 9.2.2005 for a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Warranty of one year was granted. The said A.C. created some problem after three months of the purchase of A.C. The complainant gave notice to O.P. 1.
A complaint was filed before the District Forum bearing No. 313 of 2008. The said case was decided on 20.2.2009. A.C. was repaired in compliance of the order of the District Forum. Again, when the A.C. was started, it transpired that the compressor was not working well.
The complainant filed second complaint on 21.5.2009 and contended that he has spent expenses in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. He claimed a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation.
The defence set up by the OP 1 is that A.C. was manufactured by L. G. Company, which has been closed in the year 2007. The complainant could not produce any expert opinion. The State Commission dismissed the case on the ground that it was barred by principles of res judicata.
We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae. She submits that there is manufacturing defect, the same is apparent and there is no need to produce any expert opinion.
The argument urged by the complainant/revisionist lack conviction. The case is barred by time. The guarantee period has already expired. The case was filed on 21.5.2009. Although the case is not barred by principle of Res-judicata because another cause of action had arisen. However, since the warranty period had expired, therefore the present revision petition does not survive. The complainant has made a vain attempt to make bricks without straw.
The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.