Mr. Justice S.A. Shah, President—On reading the advertisement and other facts, the complainant has purchased a photocopier machine from M/s. Indian Duplicator Company Limited. This company has subsequently changed to Gestetner India Limited. It appears that the complainant has purchased the photocopier machine in the year 1982 in good faith believing that the performance parameters promised by the opposite party to be true. According to the complainant the photocopier machine became non-functional within few months. The complainant had to constantly requisition the services of the opposite party for setting right the photocopier. However, according to the complainant, there was inherent manufacturing defect in the machine and, therefore, with all the best efforts the opposite parry could not make the machine work with the result that the complainant has incurred heavy expenditure for getting the photo copying done outside with job worker.

Another allegation is that they were foreced to buy special type of tissue paper from the opposite party only since the opposite party had warned that unless paper was purchased from the opposite party they would not take any liability or responsibility for the performance of the machine. According to the complainant the machine was junk machine, decorative piece and the complainant was compelled to return back the machine to the opposite party on 15.5.87. The complainant has given long details as to what happened between the parties during all these years. The complainant has claimed Rs. 9,48,568.95 as damages as mentioned in the complaint. It may, however, be noted that the complainant had purchased the photocopier machine for Rs. 86,000/and had paid sales tax and other taxes and the total billed amount is Rs. 1,01,262.62 as seen from the bill at Exh.1 (Page 32).

2. The opposite party has resisted the claim of the complainant and has contended that the complaint is belated and barred by limitation and has further stated that this Commission has no jurisdiction and that even on merits it has denied the liability on various’ grounds mentioned in the written statement. Mr. Dipal Patel, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has submitted that the cause of action arose in 1982, the company has name in the market and had given services from time to time, repaired the machine to the satisfaction of the complainant but it is not at present working properly because of rough use of the machine for about 5 years i.e. from 1982 to 1987. According to Mr. Patel, 65000 copies have been taken from the machine which itself shows that the machine was in working condition and having taken advantage of the machine, the complainant has put up a very inflated and false and frivolous claim against the company which requires to be dismissed.

3. The following issues therefore arise for our consideration:

(1) (1) Whether the Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute of which the cause of action has arisen in 1982 i.e. prior to the enactment of Consumer Protection Act.

(2) (2) Whether the complainant proves that the claim is not stale and within the period of limitation since according to the complainant the machine was not properly functioning from inception i.e. from 1982.

(3) (3) If 65000 copies have been taken, can it be said that the machine was not working assuming that there was some defect and whether that defect was on account of rough use by the complainant or on account of manufacturing defect.

So far the first three points are concerned, the main contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is stale and barred by limitation. In order to appreciate this contention, we shall have to discuss certain letters written by the parties to each other. By letter dated 27.2.88 the complainant made an offer to the opposite party that they were prepared to accept Rs. 60,000/in full and final settlement so that the chapter can be closed but the offer could not be acc