A consumer complaint filed beyond the statutory limitation period without sufficient cause for delay cannot be entertained, leading to dismissal.

ORDER

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA

1. This complaint filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 (in short, the “Act”) alleges deficiency in service in the supply of ground water survey instruments by the Opposite Party and prays for compensation for deficiency in service.

2. Upon notice, opposite party contested the complaint by way of written statement Complainant thereafter filed their rejoinder. Parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit. Respective short synopses of arguments were also filed by complainant and opposite party no. 1 and 2.

3. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and carefully considered the material on the record. Opposite party no. 3 was placed ex-parte on 13.03.2025 as ite remained unrepresented despite notices and several opportunities to argue.

4. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant is the Director of the Ground Water Surveys & Development Agency (GSDA), a government body functioning under the Water Supply & Sanitation Ministry of the State of Maharashtra, with its office at Bhujal Bhawan, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. The primary mandate of GSDA is the development of adequate infrastructure related to groundwater resources for public benefit, particularly for rural population and agriculturists on a non-profit basis.

5. In order to provide updated scientific data and establish a comprehensive Hydrological Information System for the State of Maharashtra, the complainant invited global bids during 1998–1999 for the procurement of Digital Water Level Recorders (DWLRs) and Data Retrieval Systems (DRS) with financing by the World Bank under the Hydrology Project to strengthen the State’s infrastructure for groundwater management, especially in drought-prone areas.

6. Opposite Party No.1, through its Indian representative, Opposite Party No.2, participated in the bidding process and was awarded the contract upon assurance of compliance with the terms and conditions prescribed in the bid documents. Subsequently, Opposite Party No.3 took over Opposite Party No.1 by way of merger and restructuring and thereby assumed all contractual obligations. The respondents are alleged to be jointly, severally, and vicariously liable under the contract by the complainant.

7. The complainant ordered purchase of 672 Digital Water Level Recorders (DWLR) and 64 data Retrival Systems (DRS) units for a total consideration of Australian dollars (AUD) 1,057,776 (equivalent to Rs.2,91,92,991/- at the time), which was duly paid. It was stipulated that the Opposite Parties would provide technical support, maintenance, and replacement services within the warranty period at no extra cost. The contract further provided for jurisdiction under Indian law, with disputes to be governed accordingly.

8. It is the case of the complainant that all the instruments supplied were found to be defective and non-functional. Complainant contends that upon intimation, Opposite Party No. 2 admitted that the cables provided were of inferior and defective quality. Despite repeated requests and written acknowledgments of liability by the Opposite Parties, no corrective action by way of repair or replacement was undertaken. Opposite Party No.3, although having assumed contractual obligations, failed to provide the promised after sale service. The complainant alleges that even after Opposite Party No.3's takeover, Opposite Party No.2 continued to interact and assured the replacement of defective units, indicating collusion and continuation of obligations.

9. It is further alleged that the Opposite Parties committed a willful and deliberate breach of contract, res