MANU/CF/0980/2013

Equivalent Citation: IV(2013)C PJ607(NC )

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI
Revision Petition No. 102 of 2013
Decided On: 19.09.2013
Appellants: Devender Singh
Vs.
Respondent: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ajit Bharihoke, J. (Presiding Member) and Suresh Chandra, Member
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. T.P.S. Teji, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Ms. Amrita Swaroop and Mr. Gaurav Malhotra,
Advocates
ORDER
Ajit Bharihoke, J. (Presiding Member)
1 . This revision is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short, 'the State Commission') dated 8.11.2012
whereby the State Commission accepted the appeal preferred by the opposite
party/Insurance Company against the order of the District Forum and set aside the
said order holding that the complaint was barred by limitation. Briefly put, facts
relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the complainant's truck No.
HR 69-7163 was insured with the respondent/opposite party. The said truck was
stolen on 3.5.2008 and FIR in this regard was registered at Police Station Jhajhar
vide FIR No. 288 under Section 379, IPC on 13.6.2008. The complainant lodged his
insurance claim with the opposite party but despite of several visits to the office of
the opposite party the respondent/opposite party failed to settle the claim.
Consequently, the petitioner was compelled to file consumer complaint under Section
12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2 . The respondent/opposite party in its written statement took a preliminary
objection that the complaint was premature as the claim of the complainant had not
been repudiated. On merits respondent took the plea that theory of the theft of the
truck was false and the complainant had obtained untraced report in collusion with
the police. It was also claimed that the complainant had failed to intimate the
respondent- Company about the theft of vehicle within a reasonable period.
3. District Forum, Sonepat on consideration of evidence came to the conclusion that
the respondent was deficient in service and allowed the complaint with following
reliefs:
Accordingly, it is directed to the respondents to make the payment of Rs.
10,40,000 (Rs. ten lacs forty thousands) to the complainant along with

30-11-2018 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com AUREUS LAW PARTNERS

 interest at rate 9% per annum from the date of the theft of truck No.
HR69/7163 and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.
2000 (Rs. two thousands) for rendering deficient services, unnecessary
harassment and further to pay a sum of Rs. 2000 (Rs. two thousands) under
the head of litigation expenses. The present complaint stands allowed with
the direction to the respondent to make compliance of this order.
It is made clear here that the complainant shall complete the formalities and
shall submit the required documents and shall transfer the RC of the truck
No. HR 69/7163 in the name of the respondent Insurance Company for the
settlement of his claim at the earliest possible.
With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint
stands allowed and the respondent is directed to make the compliance of this
order within one month from the date of passing of this order.
4. Being aggrieved of the impugned order respondent preferred an appeal before the
State Commission and the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum
and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner as barred by limitation vide the
impugned order. The State Commission, however did not address the merits of the
case.
5 . Being aggrieved of the finding of the State Commission petitioner has preferred
this revision petition. Learned Mr. T.P.S. Teji, Advocate for the petitioner has
contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is erroneous as the State
Commission has failed to appreciate that as per the allegations in the written
statement the insurance claim of the petitioner was still under the consideration of
the respondent. Learned Counsel submitted that since the claim was not repudiated
the State Commission had fallen in error in holding that the complaint was barred by
limitation.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the contrary has contended that the State
Commission has rightly held that the cause of action arose in favour of the
complainant on the date on which the theft took place and since the complaint was
filed on 4.2.2011 i.e. after the expiry of three years and seven months the State
Commission was right in holding that it was barred by limitation in view of Section
24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
7 . We have considered the rival contentions. On perusal it is seen that the State
Commission in support of its conclusion has relied upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced thus:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case cited as Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., MANU/SC/1165/2009 : 2009 CTJ 951
(Supreme Court) (CP) relied upon its earlier decision in State Bank of India
v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, MANU/SC/0420/2009 : 2009 CTJ 481 (SC)
(CP) and in para No. 12 of the judgment held as under--
Recently, in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries,
MANU/SC/0420/2009 : 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP), this Court, while
dealing with the same provisions, has held--
it would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is premptory in
nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the

30-11-2018 (Page 2 of 3) www.manupatra.com AUREUS LAW PARTNERS

 complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of
accrual of cause of action. The Consumer forum, however, for the
reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the
complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, 'shall not
admit a complaint occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative
command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the
complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed
thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with
the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within
two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond
the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay
condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is
the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and
give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the
consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would
be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would
be entitled to have such order set aside.'
8 . The Supreme Court in the above noted judgment has interpreted the scope of
Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. There can be no dispute regarding the
legal position enumerated in the above judgment. The import of the said judgment is
that a consumer complaint should be filed within two years from the date of accrual
of cause of action. Thus, the crucial issue in this revision petition is as to when the
cause of action has accrued. Admittedly, this is a case of insurance claim which was
still under consideration of the Insurance Company. Therefore, till the Insurance
Company had taken the decision on the complaint, the cause of action for filing the
complaint continued. Therefore, in our considered view the State Commission has
committed a grave error in holding that the complaint was barred by limitation. As
such, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
9. Consequently, we accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order of the
State Commission and remand the matter back to the State Commission to decide the
appeal on merits after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties. Parties are
directed to appear before the State Commission on 21.10.2013.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

30-11-2018 (Page 3 of 3) www.manupatra.com AUREUS LAW PARTNERS