The appellant's suit was dismissed due to being barred by limitation and the appellant not being entitled to the benefits under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

1. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and decree dated 14. 2001 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur in O.S.No.271 of 1999.

2. The short summation of facts of the case are as follows:

The appellant/plaintiff had placed purchase order dated 21. 1992 for supply of Hydrate 80% (2000 Kgs) at Rs.107 per Kg amounting to Rs.2,14,000/-with the respondent/defendant. The respondent/defendant sent sample along with test certificate on 12. 1992. As the sample was as per the specification, the appellant/plaintiff sent approval for bulk supply through phonogram dated 20.2.1992. The respondent/defendant supplied 2,000 kgs of Hydrazine Hydrate on 26. 1992 through A.R.C. Transport. The appellant/plaintiff made payment through Bank for a sum of Rs.2,03,300/- on 16. 1992 towards 95% value of the order and the balance 5% amount was to be paid within thirty days, if the goods were in condition. The appellant/plaintiff Board tested the bulk supply by means of taking samples on 7. 1992 and found only 31.01% purity instead of 80% under the purchase order. Therefore, there was a short fall of 42 Kg of materials and the plaintiff rejected the materials in entirety. The defects were informed to the respondent/defendant through the telex message on 17. 1992. Further the shortage was informed by a letter dated 7. 1992 to the respondent/defendant. Despite, several reminders, the respondent/ defendant failed to rectify the defects . In lieu of deficiency in service by the respondent/defendant, the appellant/plaintiff had incurred a loss for non utilising the said materials and loss occurred through other mode of purchase from outsiders. Reminders dated 27. 1992, 37. 1992, 9. 1992, 29. 1992 and 29. 1992 were issued by the appellant/plaintiff. The respondent/defendant furnished a reply on 27. 1992. The appellant/plaintiff issued a detailed reply for replacement on 9. 1992. The respondent/defendant was not prepared either to replace the aforesaid defective items or to return the advance amount. The appellant/plaintiff issued a advocates notice on 23. 1993 to the respondent/defendant calling upon it, to repay the advance amount which was paid by the appellant/plaintiff with 22% interest per annum. Since the respondent/defendant had committed an act of deficiency of service, the appellant/plaintiff filed a complaint before the Salem District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum in C.O.P.No.359 of 1994 complaining about the deficiency of service. The Consumer Forum passed an order on 9. 1006 holding that the complaint was not maintainable in view of the fact that the appellant/plaintiff was not to be considered as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Inasmuch as the appellant/ Plaintiff lodged a complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Salem, the present suit has been filed in time and that the suit is not defective as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Hence the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit praying for a Judgment and Decree against the respondent/defendant for a sum of Rs.10. 567/-with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a with costs.

3.The respondent/defendant filed a written statement inter alia taking the pleas that the appellant/plaintiff did not produce any document to show that the defect in purity or the shortage in weight and no documents were filed by the appellant/plaintiff to show that it had incurred a loss for non using the materials and loss occurred through alternative purchases from outsiders and in view of the detailed letters dated 27. 1992 and 212. 1992, there was no necessity for issuance of separate reply notice for the legal notice and the contents of the letters dated 27. 1992 and 212. 1992 were valid and that there was no breach of any of the terms of the contract and that the Consumer Forum has rightly held that the appellant/plaintiff was not a consumer as per Section 2 (d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that t