Charanjit Lal S/O Sh Pirthi Singh vs John Deere Equipment Pvt Ltd , Gautam Automobiles

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1492/07 - John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Charanjit Lal by which appeal filed by the respondent/OP was accepted and complaint was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant purchased a tractor from respondent no. 2 on 25.7.2001 which was having manufacturing defect and tractor was of 2000 model. In spite of repeated requests, defects were not cured. Hence, complainant filed complaint for replacement of tractor and grant of compensation. District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed claim partly and directed respondents to pay Rs.60,000/- for depreciation of the tractor along with compensation of Rs.10,000 and Rs.3300/- as cost of the proceedings. In appeal State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed complaint being time barred.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

THIS is an admitted fact that complainant purchased a tractor on 25.7.2001 and complaint was filed on 24.6.2005 i.e. almost after 4 years. Complaint can be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. But in the instant case the complaint has been filed after almost 4 years. Respondents in their preliminary objections took plea regarding complaint being time barred, even then the District Forum allowed the complaint in part. Learned State Commission has rightly observed that complaint is time barred and has referred cases decided by the apex court State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries - 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT 2009 (4) SC 191 and V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes - 2011 CTJ 1 (SC) (CP). Learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant could not show how complaint is within limitation. He simply submitted that from the date of knowledge of mechanical defect in the tractor complaint is within limitation. Perusal of complaint nowhere reveals that when he came to know about the mechanical defect in the tractor first time and when he approached the respondents for removing mechanical defects. In the given situation where the complainant had been using the tractor for the last 4 years, limitation cannot be extended on the basis of self-declared and unproven belated knowledge. Hence, this complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and the State Commission has not committed any illegality or irregularity in accepting appeal and dismissing complaint.

CONSEQUENTLY, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.