CHANDRA BHUSHAN SINGH vs BAYER DIAGNOSTICS INDIA LTD.

IN this revision challenge is to the order dated 17.1.2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bihar, Patna allowing appeal against the order dated 22.12.2003 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint.

PETITIONER/complainant placed order for purchase of RA 50 Chemistry Analyser machine with respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1 through its dealer Sinwalia Enterprises on 14.11.1998. Warranty period of the equipment was one year. Equipment was serviced on 23.5.1999 by the respondents to the satisfaction of the petitioner. Under an annual maintenance contract entered into between the parties for the period from 1.10.2000 to 30.9.2001, the equipment was serviced on 21.11.2000 and on 10.4.2001 by the respondents. PETITIONER alleged that filter wheel of the equipment was reconditioned and old. Alleging deficiency in service the petitioner filed complaint which was contested by the respondents on a variety of grounds including that the complaint was barred by limitation and equipment was purchased for commercial purpose and as such the complaint was not maintainable. State Commission allowed the appeal on the grounds of complaint being barred by time and equipment in question having been purchased for commercial purpose.

We have heard Mr. B.V. Mishra for petitioner on admission. It is not in dispute that equipment was purchased on 14.11.1998; warranty period was one year and complaint was filed in August, 2002. It is further not in dispute that equipment was serviced by the respondents on 23.5.1999 and after taking annual maintenance contract on 21.11.2000 and 10.4.2001. In case the filter wheel was re-conditioned and old as alleged the petitioner must have come to know of it at least by the time the equipment was serviced on 23.5.1999. Complaint filed in August, 2002 was, thus, barred by time under Section 24A of C.P. Act, 1986.

COMING to second ground referred to above, it may be mentioned that complaint is silent in regard to equipment having been purchased by the petitioner for self-employment. For the reasons recorded in impugned order we are inclined to agree with the State Commission that equipment was purchased for commercial purpose by the petitioner. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act. Dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.