Arguments heard on respondent's legal objections, mainly objection regarding limitation.
Respondent's learned counsel, while contending that petitioner's claim is barred by time, referred to contents of para 3 of petition where the petitioner claimed that right from installing Executive Tracker System in his car on 22-7-07 the system did not work properly. Thus cause of action to file the claim arose on 22-7-10. This being so, petitioner should have filed the claim within 30 days from 22-7-07 but he filed it on 3-10-09. Learned counsel further submitted that no doubt the complainant wrote letters to the respondents more than once but even that cannot save limitation to treat petitioner's claim within time. As regards respondents' non replying of legal notice dated 17-9-09, that too is not sufficient for condonation of inordinate delay of more than a year as period of limitation is calculated from arrising cause of action and not from respondent's refusal or non replying of legal notice as a complainant may deliberately opt to serve legal notice late so as to bring his claim within time. In para 6 of petition, the petitioner claimed that cause of action to file this claim arose on 2-2-09 when the impugned tracker system absolutely failed to work but even such contention cannot help the petitioner as in this case cause of action admittedly accrued to the petitioner in July 2007, as already stated. As a against these submissions respondent's counsel prayed for rejection of petition.
2. On the other hand, petitioner's learned counsel submitted that suit tracker system kept on working in a way that petitioner tolerated with the working of tracker system and it was only in September 2009 that the system totally failed to work with the result that petitioner felt aggrieved to file this petition, therefore, his claim is not barred by time and respondent's objection is liable to be dismissed having no force or substance.
3. As it would appear from record and what has been stated above that in the present case cause, of action arose to the petitioner soon after the suit tracker system went out of order (i.e. In July 2007) but the petitioner did not complain for about a year. Therefore, petitioner's claim is found time barred from the very contents of petition. As regards condonation of delay u/s 5 of Limitation Act 1908 it cannot be granted as provision of section 5 ibid are not applicable proceedings before Consumer Court vide section 29 of Limitation Act. Petitioner's claim is, therefore, liable to be dismissed the same being barred by time. After due completion, file be consigned to record room.