Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member
1. This Revision Petition No.2491 of 2019 challenges the impugned order of the learned Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Guwahati (‘the State Commission’) dated 27.09.2019. Vide this order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal No.79 of 2016 and set aside the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guwahati (the District Forum’) dated 20.09.2016 whereby the District Forum allowed the Complaint.
2. Briefly, the case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that, he on 28.03.2001 deposited Rs. 10,000/- with the Respondents under the Peerless Social Welfare Scheme which the OPs acknowledged by issuing money receipts/proposal receipts. A certificate in favour of the Complainant was also issued on 30.03.2001 which was to mature on 28.03.2006. After maturity of the certificate, he along with the agent of the OPs namely, Sri Chanchal Kumar approached the OPs. As the claim was not settled, he served a demand notice through his Advocate on 25.08.2008. The Branch Accountant of the Respondent No. 1 asked the complainant to produce the receipt of the proposal. But, the complainant could only furnish a photo copy of the proposal receipt. Since the Respondent failed to settle his claim, the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the learned District Forum, Kamrup.
3. In their reply, the respondents asserted that the complaint is false, motivated, untrue, vexatious and baseless. It is barred by limitation as per Section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The cause of action arose on 28.03.2006 which is the maturity date of the Certificate No.V0003199 and the Complainant ought to have filed the complaint within two years between 28.03.2006 and 28.03.2008. But, he filed in Dec, 2009 i.e. after expiry of the period of limitation. On merits, the OPs argued that no such Certificate No. V0003199 was issued to the Complainant. This is a forged document and hence he has no cause of action. They neither received Rs.10,000/- from him on 28.3.2001 nor issued Certificate No. V0003199 to him. Thus, they are not liable to pay Rs.15,720/- as maturity value. In all the certificates issued by the OPs some signatures were printed, but the genuine certificates bear the signature and seal of the issuing branch. The instant certificate bears only printed signatures and, although it is shown to have been issued from the Guwahati Branch Office of OPs, it does not have signature and seal of the Branch Manager of the branch office. He got some blank certificate from their office and printed some scheme on it and is now claiming the alleged maturity value knowing fully well that he never deposited any money with OPs. Therefore, he is not entitled to get any money from them. The said certificate is fraudulent in nature and based on a forged document.
4. The learned District Forum, vide order dated 20.09.2016 allowed the complaint with the following directions:
“7) Because of what has been discussed as above, the complaint against the opp. parties is allowed on contest and the opp. parties are directed to pay the maturity value of the concerned certificate i.e. Rs.15,720/- along with interest @ 10% from the date of maturity (28.3.06) till full payment and Rs. 4,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to him as well as Rs.4,000/- as cost of proceeding to which the opp. parties are jointly and severally liable. They are also directed to make the payment within two months, in default of which, the other two amounts shall also carry interest at the same rate.”
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 27.09.2019 set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint being barred by limitation. The relevant portion of the impugned order are reproduced below:
“4. Heard Mr. T.K. Dutta, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants and Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. Also perused the case record. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the consumer complaint filed by the complainant was barred by limitation but the District Forum erroneously held that there was no delay. The order condoning the delay in Misc. Case No.20/2009 was passed ex parte. No notice was served upon the appellants to raise their objection. The District Forum observed that the complainant repeatedly made verbal request and ultimately sent demand notice through his Advocate on 25-08-2008. The opposite parties/appellants replied to the said notice on 10-09-2008. Therefore, commencement of the period of limitation is from 10-09-2008 and not from 28-03- 2006.
5. In the cited case of Mahanagar Telecom Nigam Vs Sri V.K. Ahuja, 2009 (2) CPR 303 (NC), it was held that no amount of correspondence or meetings, will extend the period of limitation.
6. In the case of M/s Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd Vs Bijoy Kumar Rov and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 1771-1772 of 2002 it was observed;-
"We find that the question of limitation has not been considered seriously at any stage. There is no dispute that the claim petition was barred by limitation. The National Commission has only observed that the delay was due to the assurance given by the dealer to get the defects rectified, but surprisingly no letter has particularly indicated in the order much less within limitation, by which liability may have been acknowledged by the appellant. The Commission further observed that 'at this stage', there could not be any question of interference in the order of the State Commission on the point of limitation. There seems to be no justification for negating the plea of limitation with such cursory and passing observations. The question of stage of proceedings has no relevance so far question of limitation is concerned. The claim has been filed beyond the period of limitation say more than four years after defects were pointed out".
7. The District Forum in its judgment observed that at the time of filing the complaint, the complainant had also filed one petition under Section 24(A)(2) of the Act, for condonation of delay in filing the complaint which was registered as Misc Case No. 20/2009 and was disposed of with observation that there was no delay and the complaint was filed within time. The order passed in Misc Case No. 20/2009 was not assailed before any higher forum therefore it attained finality.
8. The next limb of argument on behalf of the appellants is that the certificate which is the basis of claim is forged document as it was neither signed by the Branch Manager or any authorised Officer of the appellants company. The argument on behalf of the appellants is that the complaint was filed in collusion with one Chanchal Kumar Chauhan (PW 2) who was then agent of the appellant No. 1, is beyond pleading.
9. Section 24 (A) of the Act, 1986, prescribes limitation of period for admission of a complaint by the Consumer Fora and reads;
"24-A: Limitation period: The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a compliant unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records Its reason for condoning such delay."
10. Section 24 A of the Act thus mandates the Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reason to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint, if sufficient cause is shown.
11. In the present case at the first available opportunity in the written statement itself, the appellant raised the plea that the complaint was barred by limitation. The plea raised by the appellant was not considered as the delay was already condoned vide order passed in the Misc. Application. In the Misc. Application the District Forum held that, "It appears that many verbal request were made to the opposite party to settle the matter and thereafter letter dated 25-08-2008 was sent to the opposite party and opposite party replied to the said letter on 10-09-2008, therefore in our view the period of limitation will start from 10-09-2008 and not from 28-03-2006 (the date of maturity)"
12. In the similar case of SBI Vs B.S. Agriculture Industries (1) (2009) 5 SCC 121 the plea of the complainant was that the complainant sent various letters to the Bank and vide their reply dated 11-03-1997 the Bank asked the complainant to forward a copy of the letter dated 4-5-1996 for necessary action. It was held;-
"By no stretch of imagination, can it be held that the limitation came to be extended by the Bank's reply dated 11-03-1997. The letters sent by the Bank and the Bank's reply are of no help to the complainant. The Bank has not by its reply acknowledged its liability. The Bank only wanted the complainant to send a copy of the letter dated 4-5-1996 for necessary action.
13. In the instant case also, the Branch Accountant of the appellant asked the complainant to produce the receipt of the proposal. The appellant has not acknowledged its liability. Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act says that the complaint must be filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. Undisputedly, the cause of action accrued on 28-03-2006. The complainant sent a demand notice through his Advocate on 25th August, 2008 i.e. after the expiry of two years. The Branch Accountant in reply to the notice simply asked the complainant to produce the money/proposal receipt without acknowledging the liability. The District Forum erroneously held that the period of limitation will be computed from the date of reply by the Accountant of the appellant.
14. Since the complaint is barred by limitation, liable to be dismissed on that count, it would be futile exercise to examine the other grounds.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the District Forum is set-aside. The complaint stands dismissed as time barred. Parties shall bear their own cost.”
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the grounds of the complaint and asserted that the Petitioner deposited Rs. 10,000/- with OPs under the Peerless Social Welfare Scheme which the OPs acknowledged by issuing money receipts/proposal receipts. A certificate was issued to the Complainant on 30.03.2001 which matured on 28.03.2006. Thereafter, he and Sri Chanchal Kumar, the agent of OPs approached them. But, the claim was not settled. He served a legal notice on 25.08.2008. He sought the order of the State Commission be set aside the upheld the order of the District Forum and consequently, the present Revision Petition be allowed.
7. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the complaint was time barred as the cause of action accrued on 28.03.2006, the Complainant had issued a legal notice on 25.08.2008 i.e. after the expiry of two years. He argued in favour of the impugned order passed by the State Commission. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), (2009) 5 SCC 121.
8. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and the State Commission as well as the arguments advanced.
9. The learned State Commission considered the period for filing the Complaint before the District Commission as elapsed as the Complainant had failed to file the complaint within two years of maturity of the deposit in question and thus Dismissed the Complaint.
10. In the case in question, the contention is that the Complainant had deposited Rs. 10,000/- with the Respondents under the Peerless Social Welfare Scheme on 28.03.2001 and matured on 28.03.2006. After maturity of the certificate, he approached the OPs. As the claim was not settled, he served a demand notice through his Advocate on 25.08.2008. The Branch Accountant of the Respondent No. 1 asked him to produce the receipt of the proposal. But, he could only furnish its photo copy. Since the Respondent failed to settle his claim, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Kamrup in December 2009. It is a matter of record that the Application seeking condonation of delay was allowed and the delay was condoned vide ex-parte order dated 22.12.2009. Apparently, the said order was not challenged by the OPs. When the matter was finally disposed of by the District Forum, seven years later, on 20.09.2016, this issue was contested in Appeal urging that the complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned State Commission considered that the cause of action arose on 28.03.2006 which is the maturity date of the Certificate No.V0003199 and he ought to have filed the complaint within two years between 28.03.2006 and 28.03.2008. But, he filed in Dec, 2009 i.e. after expiry of this period. The learned State Commission vide order dated 27.09.2019 allowed the Appeal and dismissed the complaint on the grounds of lapse of limitation period. The main considerations made by the learned State Commission are brought out at Para-5 above.
11. The manner of computing the limitation period for insurance claims is given under Article 44(b) of the Limitation Act 1963 stating that the time is to be calculated from “the date of the occurrence causing the loss, or where the claim on the policy is denied either partly or wholly, the date of such denial”. In Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. [II(1997)CPJ 36 (NC) the five member bench of the National Commission has interpreted the law on the subject. A fire had occurred in October 1986. The claim was rejected in November 1986. The insured made representations to the insurer which appointed a surveyor who submitted his report in April 1989. The insurance company slept over the claim and ultimately rejected it in August 1994. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim, the insured filed a consumer complaint in 1995. The issue before this Commission was whether the claim was time barred or not. This Commission held that since the claim was under consideration by the insurer, it would be just and fair to consider that limitation would begin to run from the date of final rejection of the claim.
12. It is an established position that, if otherwise eligible, the maturity amount was due to be paid on 28.03.2006. The OPs engaged the Complainants in submission of certain records and finally rejected the claim vide reply to the legal notice on 10.09.2008. Without doubt, limitation period is the time within which a person must file his case before a judicial authority for exercising his rights. This period is to be calculated from the date of the cause of action. While the term ‘cause of action’ is not specifically defined, it is well settled that “cause of action” is a mixed question of fact and law.
13. In the present case, it is revealed that the Complainant was pursuing his claim with the OPs, submitted certain documents, issued a legal notice and after receiving the repudiation of claim on 10.09.2008, filed the complaint in December 2009. Further, along with the complaint, the Complainant had filed an Application seeking Condonation of Delay, which was considered by the learned District forum and was allowed and the delay was condoned ex-parte on 22.12.2009. This order remained unchallenged by the OPs till final disposal of the case on 20.09.2016. Under these circumstances and the fact that about 10 years have already lapsed from the date of filing the complaint and allowing the condonation of delay, the learned State Commission ought to have considered the matter on merits and disposed of the case as against dismissing on the grounds of delay.
14. In view of the foregoing deliberations, the Revision Petition is allowed. The order of the learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 79 of 2016 dated 20.09.2019 is set aside. The learned State Commission is requested to consider and dispose of the matter on merits expeditiously.
15. There shall be no orders as to costs.
16. All the pending Applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
17. All parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 15.04.2024.
