The cause of action for a claim under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arises when the defect or deficiency in the goods or services occurs, and not from the date of demand for payment or compensation.

Mr. Justice Sambhu Charan Datta, President—This appeal is directed against order dated 8.4.1997 passed by District Forum, Birbhum dismissing the case of the complainant on the ground that the case was barred by limitation.

2. The backdrop of the case is that the complainant purchased a Diesel Tractor from opposite party 1 from its local dealer viz. opposite party 2 by taking loan from opposite party 4 for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-. Subsequently, the said Tractor was insured with opposite party-3. The said Tractor was delivered to the complainant by opposite party-2 on 11.7.1990 but the said Tractor developed trouble within 15-hours of purchase and this fact was brought to the notice of the opposite party-2. Opposite party-2 made necessary arrangement for repairing the Tractor through a local mechanic. The complainant claimed reimbursement of cost of repairing of the Tractor from opposite party-4, the Financier but the latter sent a notice dated 28.8.1994 to the complainant demanding a sum of Rs. 1,44,780/-. Consequently, the complainant approached the Forum for reliefs including payment of compensation.

3. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their respective objections contending inter alia that the claim of the complainant was hopelessly barred by limitation.

4. It appears that the Forum raised as many as six issues and Issue No. 2 is on the point of limitation. The Forum decided Issue No. 2 and clearly held that the claim of the complainant was hopelessly barred by limitation, having not been filed within the statutory period of limitation. It further appears that the Forum did not consider and decided other issues on the ground that the case was barred by limitation. In that view of the matter the Forum dismissed the claim preferred by the complainant.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Forum, the complainant has moved this Commission in appeal. According to the appellant, the cause of action for the claim arose on and from 28.8.1994 when the demand was made by opposite party-4 for recovery of loan from him and not from a date earlier to it. He submits that the Forum was wrong in holding that the cause of action arose in July, 1990 when the complainant found the Tractor defective. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Forum was not justified in dismissing the claim solely on the ground of limitation but it ought to have decided the other issues raised in this case before dismissing the claim. The learned Lawyer for the appellant submits that Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended), 1986 came into force on and from 18.6.1993 prospectively. Prior to 18.6.1993 there was no specific period of limitation for filing complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to him, the period of limitation in the present case would be 3 years from the date of cause of action. In support of his contention he has referred to certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law as is sought to be established. The main question for consideration in this case is as to when the cause of action in the present case actually arose. According to the appellant, the cause of action arose only on 28.8.1994 when a claim was made by his Financier viz. opposite party-4. This position is, however, disputed by the respondents. According to them, the cause of action accrued when the Tractor developed mechanical defects. It is not disputed that the Tractor was purchased on 25.5.1990 and delivery was effected on 11.7.1990. It has been alleged that the said Tractor developed trouble within 15 hours of its purchase. The matter was brought to the notice of opposite party-2 and the defects were removed by opposite party-2, the local agent of opposite party-1 with the help of a local mechanic. The appellant sought to realise the cost of such repair from its financier viz. opposite party-4 but the latter instead of allowing the claim dem