1. THROUGH this appeal, the original complainant, namely, Mr. V. Narayanan seeks to challenge the order dated 13.4.2010 passed by the Tamil Nadu States Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, ''the State Commission'') in C.C.S.R. No. 189 of 2010, whereby complaint of the complainant was dismissed as vexatious and complainant was saddled with the cost of Rs. 10,000 which he has been called upon to deposit in the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission within one month by means of a demand draft with the stipulation that in case the cost is not deposited, the same may be realized by invoking the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. WE have heard Mr. Vipin Gogia, learned Counsel representing the appellant at great length and have given our thoughtful consideration to his submissions. Before we dwell on the same, we would like to briefly notice the background preceding the complaint before the State Commission. It would appear that the complainant is a partner of Sealark Fisheries which owned fishing boats for its business. In 1976, Sealark Fisheries had availed of agricultural loan of Rs. 1.75 lakh from the opposite party - Canara Bank, Nungambakkam Branch. Sealark Fisheries had acquired a fishing boat from M/s. Aqua Marine Pvt. Ltd., Ambattur at a price of Rs. 2.35 lakh and had hypothecated the same with the opposite party-Bank after furnishing collateral security. The Bank had been taking insurance coverage in respect of the fishing boat in order to safeguard its banking interest and had also obtained one such insurance on 12.4.1979 from United India Insurance Company and got it renewed for the next year commencing from 12.4.1980. During the currency of the said insurance, on 21.7.1980, the insured fishing boat met with an accident, capsized and could not be traced and, therefore, the Bank lodged a claim on the insurance company which was repudiated on the ground that the Bank had submitted a blank/ incomplete proposal form. Aggrieved by such repudiation of the claim, the complainant and the Canara Bank filed Civil Suit No. CS/333/83 against the United India Insurance Company in the High Court of Madras. But according to the complainant, after filing the said suit, the co-plaintiff Canara Bank did not cooperate in pursuing the said suit. The learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, the defendant United India Insurance Company filed latter Patent Appeal No. OSA/48/1998 and at the same time deposited the decreetal amount in the Court. Though the said appeal was initially dismissed on 11.12.2002 but it was revived / refiled and was allowed on contest and the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge was set aside. Aggrieved by the decision of the Madras High Court in appeal, the complainant filed Civil Appeal No. 803 of 2008 in the Supreme Court. The said appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 30.1.2008 with certain observations. Vide another order dated 7.7.2009, the Supreme Court modified its earlier order dated 30.1.2008 dismissing the said SLP/ Civil Appeal. It would appear that based on certain observations made in the order disposing of the said appeal, the complainant filed this complaint before the State Commission.
3. IN the complaint it was averred that the Supreme Court, accepting the argument of the Insurance Company, observed that the policy became null and void due to suppression of material facts in the proposal form by the opposite party inasmuch as the insurance agent had not furnished necessary particulars in all the columns even when the proposal form had been returned to the Bank for checking up and correction. From those observations, it was clearly established before the State Commission that the opposite party-Bank alone was responsible for the loss of the fishing boat. Accordingly, the complainant called upon the Chairman and Managing Director of the opposite party-Bank to pay the claim in respect of the loss of the fishing boat with interest @ 19.5% w.e.f. date of accident. The Bank instead of paying the amount, started claiming the money from the complainant which resulted in great loss and hardship to the complainant. According to the complainant, the cause of action of the above complaint arose on 7.7.2009, the date on which the Supreme Court modified its earlier order dated 30.1.2008 and on earlier occasions when the opposite party:
"(a) Submitted a blank signed Proposal Form to United India Insurance Co., which led to the repudiation of claim of loss. (b) Consequent deficient, callous, lethargic and negligent service of the opposite party while covering the Insurance for the hypothecated fishing boat, the complainant lost the value of the fishing boat. (c) Lodged double claim for single loan-one from the complainant and other from the Insurance Companies by way of three suits and the opposite party has become liable for the amounts, interest and costs to the complainant for its double claim. (d) Harassed the complainant mentally and monetarily for more than 30 years by not responding to any of his letters and drove him from pillar to post for conducting the suits against Insurance Companies and for defending himself from the suit against him willfully. (e) Did not claim the decreed amount deposited by the United India Insurance Co., from the Court for a decade in CS 333/83. (f) Did not return the original documents such as Legal Opinion and Encumbrance Certificates for the properties for which the complainant had made payments and charges and given as collateral securities, even after a lapse of nearly 10 years after closing the loan. (g) Did not credit the cost awarded by the Court while dismissing the Appeal OSA 48/98 into the account of the complainant".
4.THE following reliefs were claimed in the complaint:
"Value for the Fishing Boat 2,35,000.00 Amount spent for searching the boat as per provision of the policy 10,150.00 19.5% interest from 21.7.1980 till 30.1.2010 as claimed in CS 333/83 14,06,242.00 Damages for mental agony for the past three decades due to the deficient, callous, inefficient service of the opposite party 10,00,000.00 Total : 26,51,392.00 With cost of petition, further interest of 19.5% from 1.2.2010 and any other relief as this Honourable Forum may deem fit".
5.IT would appear that the complaint came up before the State Commission on 12.4.2010 for considering the question of its entertainability/maintainability and the State Commission heard the complainant and passed the impugned order, dismissing the complaint, by observing as under:
"Thus the claim of the complainant for the recovery of the amount, along with the present opposite party, came to an end, reached finality, thereby the complainant lost everything. After the disposal of the appeal by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, exhausting all the remedies, which are sought to be raised here once again, this complaint has been filed. In view of the admitted fact the Apex Court has given quietus for the dispute, raised by the complainant, though it is against the insurance company, though not against the bank, the same cannot be raised, in any other form, against one of the plaintiffs, in the modified form, giving fresh cause of action. The Apex Court has not given any liberty to the complainant herein to agitate his case if any against the bank, as if concluding the bank has committed any deficiency in service. In this prayer also, one of the relief is 19.5% interest from 21.7.1980 till 30.1.2010 as claimed in CS. 333/83 Rs. 14,06,242, which was negatived, cannot be raised against the co-plaintiff, impleading him as opposite party. For the abovesaid reasons, when the complainant had lost the relief, against the insurance company, the same relief , cannot be once again agitated against the bank, who was a co-plaintiff along with this complainant. In this view, the complaint should be rejected as not maintainable. Admittedly the cause of action had arisen for this complaint, though it is not specifically stated so, elsewhere in the year 1980, i.e., date on which the vessel sank, due to natural calamity or otherwise. The deficiency alleged against bank, in this complaint or the amount claimed in this complaint, according to the complainant, extended more than 30 years, 10 years etc. Section 24-A contemplates a consumer can maintain a case, within two years from the date of cause of action before the Consumer Forum, or in other words, the Forum or the Commission, is prohibited from taking case, if the same is filed more than two years, from the date of cause of action. Here for 30 years, cause of action, 10 years cause of action etc. accusing the opposite party, a fabulous claim of Rs. 26,51,392 is filed in the year 2010, which should be rejected as barred by limitation. The complainant is not a stranger to the previous proceedings. He along with the opposite party alone has filed the case and he alone went to the Supreme Court, lost the case. Therefore, the complainant knew fully well about the previous litigation, and the findings of the Hon''ble High Court, as well as the Hon''ble Supreme Court, including how his claims were negatived. Inspite of the above facts, the complainant had the audacity to file a case, more or less on the same cause of action, against the co-plaintiff in the previous proceedings, which should be considered and construed as frivolous litigation, as contemplated under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. Despite giving chance for the complainant to reconsider his case, which was negatived by the Apex Court, he argued as if his case is maintainable, before this Commission, which would go to show that knowing fully well, that his case is frivolous and vexatious, he wants to take chance by filing this kind of vexatious litigation, which should be rejected with cost, though the other side is not before us".
6.MR. Gogia would assail the above order of the State Commission primarily on the ground that the latter failed to take due notice of the observations made by the Supreme Court in its order dated 30.1.2008 as modified vide order dated 7.7.2009. In this connection, he took us through the observations made by the Supreme Court in the said order as also the quoted portion of the deposition of DW1. According to learned Counsel, the said decision of the Supreme Court clearly held that it was due to the lapse of the opposite party-Bank in not furnishing the correct/detailed particulars in the proposal form as required by the agent leading to repudiation of the claim and thus it committed deficiency in service, for which the complainant was entitled to compensation from the opposite party-Bank. The argument of MR. Gogia is that these observations in the order of the Supreme Court has given the appellant a fresh cause of action to sue the opposite party-Bank for this kind of relief claimed in the complaint and, therefore, the State Commission was not justified in treating the complaint as vexatious and frivolous or without any cause of action or barred by limitation.
7. WE have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by Mr. Gogia, learned Counsel representing the appellant. The contention may appear to be somewhat be somewhat plausible at the first glance but its hollowness is exposed as soon as we examine the entertainability of the complaint based on any known legal doctrine. WE say so because as per the complainant''s own showing, the defect in the insurance proposal form for taking the policy was committed by the bank sometime in April. 1980, i.e., more than 30 years ago and this became very clear to the complainant latest by May 1981 when the insurance company repudiated the claim precisely on the ground that no valid contract of insurance covering the fishing boat had come into existence due to the alleged defect in the proposal form despite being apprised of the factual position. However, the complainant chose not to take any action against the opposite party-Bank either by filing a civil suit or any other proceedings in order to claim the loss and injury allegedly suffered by it due to the aforesaid deficiency on the part of the opposite party-Bank. Surprisingly, the appellant / complainant joined hands with the opposite party-Bank in filing the civil suit against the insurance company which will clearly indicate that the appellant was quite sure that the opposite party-Bank had not committed any efficiency in service and it was the insurance company which had repudiated the claim on certain untenable grounds. In our view, on the face of the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the law prevailing at the relevant time (the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, having not been brought on statute Book) the appellant, at best could have filed a civil suit against the opposite party-Bank latest within three years from May 1981 and at no later point of time. He, being advised of his legal position and oblivious of his legal rights, chose a wrong course and joined hands with the opposite party-Bank in pursuing his remedy. Now, after litigation for more than one quarter of a century before various Courts, he wants to seek his remedy against the opposite party (co-plaintiff before the High Court) before one of the Consumer Fora based on cause of action, which according to him, arose as lately as 2009 when the Supreme Court modified its earlier order making certain observations in regard to conduct of the opposite party - Bank in obtaining the insurance coverage. In our opinion, the said observations are not in any way to be construed so as to confer any new cause of action on the complainant on the basis of which the complainant can seek his remedy which had become time-barred more than 20 years ago. No Courts, Tribunal or Forum confers any cause of action on a party to the proceedings. WE must, therefore, reject as ex facie fallacious Mr. Gogia''s contention that the complainant got a fresh cause of action w.e.f. 7.7.2009 when the Supreme Court modified the order.
8.FOR the foregoing reasons, we have no manner of doubt that the State Commission rightly found that the present complaint was vexatious. We also find that it is not only vexatious but an attempt to abuse the process of statutory FORums established under a benevolent statute to protect the interest of bona fide consumers.
9.IN the result, we dismiss the appeal and uphold the finding of the State Commission dismissing the complaint. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it expedient to saddle the appellant with further cost in these proceedings, which we quantify at Rs. 20,000 to be deposited in the Legal Aid Fund of this Commission within four weeks. Appeal dismissed.
