Companies try to use all possible technical defences to get away from the clutches of law, so that legal redress for a consumer becomes a difficult task. The National Commission's recent ruling on limitation and jurisdiction will help consumers in their quest for justice.
N Murari and his brothers had jointly purchased block board, manufactured by Tata Coffee. This material was purchased in April 2005 and used in their respective homes for making furniture and cabinets.
In March 2007, they noticed the block board was affected by borer infestation. They took up the matter with the company but did not get a proper response. Ultimately, in 2009, each of the four brothers independently filed individual consumer complaints before the Bellary District Forum. The Tatas questioned the jurisdiction of the Forum at Bellary, claiming there was an agreement that all disputes would be subject to Bangalore jurisdiction. The company also claimed the complaint was time-barred, as the block board had been purchased four years ago. Tatas contended there was no evidence of any manufacturing defect and, hence, could not be held liable.
On jurisdiction, the Forum concluded the block board was delivered and used at Bellary, where it was found infested with borer worms. So, the District Forum at Bellary would have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute. On limitation, the Forum observed that the date of purchase was immaterial, since the time limit for filing the complaint would have to be reckoned from the date when the cause of action had arisen, which was March 2007, when the block board was found to be borer infected. The complaint was within two years and held to be in time.
The Forum ordered Tatas to refund the price of the block board, with nine per cent interest from the date of the complaint. Tatas, as well as Murari and his brothers, appealed against this order to the Karnataka State Commission. While Tatas wanted the order set aside, Murari and his brothers wanted the compensation enhanced. The State Commission dismissed the Tatas' appeals. Murari and his brothers were also awarded Rs 5,000 each as compensation and Rs 2,000 each as litigation costs.
The Tatas then approached the National Commission. Their main argument was that limitation should be computed from 2005, when the material was purchased, and that the complaint was time barred. Rejecting this argument, the Commission observed the cause of action for filing the complaint was detection of borer infestation in the block board. A complaint can be made only when the infestation is noticed and not before. So, though the material was purchased in 2005, the limitation would start from March 2007, when infestation was detected. Accordingly, the National Commission concurred with the District Forum and State Commission that the complaint filed in 2009, within two years from the date of detection of the infestation, was within the limitation period.
The National Commission further observed a printed stipulation on the bill that all disputes would be subject to Bangalore jurisdiction could not be used to circumvent the Consumer Protection Act, which legally vested jurisdiction in the Forum at Bellary, where the goods had been delivered and the cause of action had arisen.
On the evidence in respect of the infestation, Murari and his brother had filed their carpenter's affidavit to support their case. They had also applied for appointing an independent architect as court commissioner to opine on the infestation but their application was opposed by the Tatas. The company had not produced any evidence in its defence. Based on this evidence, the District Forum and State Commission had given concurrent findings that the material was defective, which could not be challenged in revision.
Accordingly, by its judgement dated March 7, 2014, delivered by Vinay Kumar for the bench, along with Vineeta Rai, the National Commission dismissed Tatas' revision and upheld the order in favour of the consumer. Simply put, the cause of a consumer's grievance is the starting point for computing limitation. The law will prevail over a standard clause unilaterally printed on a bill.
The writer is a consumer activist
