INDER BHUSHAN DUA Vs. UNIVERSAL INSTRUMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 16/2010, "Dr. Inder Bhushan Dua versus Director/General Manager (Sales), Universal Instrument & Ors.," vide which while dismissing the appeal of the present petitioner/complainant, the order dated 06.11.2009 in Complaint No. 215/2007, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Allahabad, was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant is a General Physician and as per his complaint, he purchased one life saving Defi Monitor Machine, used for U.M.Aa. E.E.M. heart disease from the respondents for Rs.60,000/- and the same was installed at his nursing home in Allahabad on 12.07.2001. It has been stated that the machine was purchased by the complainant from respondent no. 2 from Karol Bagh, New Delhi but the bill was issued by respondent no. 3 on 29.07.2001 from Indore (M.P.). The complainant has alleged that just a few days after the date of installation, the machine was not functioning properly and he duly informed the respondents to this effect. He had the apprehension that an old machine was supplied to him. An engineer and agent of respondent no. 2 could not repair the machine and his request for replacement of the machine was not accepted. The complainant filed a consumer complaint in question on 12.04.2007 which was dismissed by the District Forum mainly on the ground that the District Forum at Allahabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the complaint was time-barred having been filed after six years of cause of action and there was no valid warranty for the machine. An appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the State Commission. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

(3.) At the time of admission hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that ever since purchase, the machine had been found to be defective and his request for replacement of the same had not been accepted by the OPs. Referring to the point of limitation, the learned counsel maintained that there was a continuing cause of action and hence, the complaint should be treated as within limitation. He had sent intimation to the respondents at various time intervals requesting for replacement/repairing the machine.