RAJNI BHATIA Vs. AMTRAK TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant purchased a computer from the respondent No.1 on 6th March, 1998 for a sum of Rs.56,000 which started giving trouble from the day one itself. It was replaced on 5th December, 1998. Appellant was not satisfied with the replaced computer as it hanged repeatedly. It was repaired on 29.5.1999 but grievance was not redressed. He sent legal notice in January, 2000, still no action was taken. Consequently, appellant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of cost of computer with interest and compensation.

(2.) Vide impugned order dated 21st April, 2003, the complaint was dismissed on two grounds, firstly being barred by time and secondly that it was not understandable when the computer was not giving satisfactory results in the year 1999, why the complaint was not filed within 1-2 years. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) In our view, both the grounds of dismissing the complaint are not sustainable. In such type of cases, the cause of action is of subsisting nature and continues till the grievance of the consumer is redressed and particularly when consumer serves a legal notice. The limitation starts from serving a legal notice. Further it was not the case where the appellant did not bring his complaint to the notice of the respondent about mal-functioning of replaced machine. Though the defects in the machine were got rectified but still the machine did not function and she served legal notice. When no action was taken she filed the instant complaint.