LILAC MEDICARE (PVT ) LTD Vs. BALBEER CHAND SHOREY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Lilac Medicare Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 25.2.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in MA No.2496 of 2014 in First Appeal No.1566 of 2014.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 31.08.2006, Genio Equipment was sold to the respondent at a price of Rs.6,59,466/-, including CST of Rs.73,274/-. On 11.10.2006, the said machine was installed at the laboratory of the respondent at Amritsar and the respondent duly signed the installation report. In March, 2007, the petitioner replaced the said machine as the respondent was reporting errors in the previous machine. The respondent was not satisfied with the functioning of the machine. On 23.08.2007, petitioner paid Rs.4,63,363/- to the respondent in full and final settlement through cheque which was duly encashed by the respondent. On 16.01.2008, the respondent filed a consumer complaint bearing No.37/2008 before the District Forum. On 09.06.2008, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar, (in short 'the District Forum') dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent holding that the respondent is not a consumer. On 28.07.2008, the respondent filed an Appeal No.789 of 2008 before the State Commission challenging the order dated 09.06.2008 of District Forum. The State Commission vide its order dated 22.3.2013 observed that the District Forum has decided the complaint without giving any opportunity to either of the party much less to the respondent to adduce evidence. The State Commission remanded the complaint to District Forum for deciding afresh after giving due opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. On 20.2.2014, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and held that respondent is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.2,00,703/- with interest @9% per annum. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. On 25.02.2016, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner holding the same to be barred by limitation.

(3.) Hence the present revision petition.