1.      These five Revision Petitions No.2454-2458 of 2023 have been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Act, 2019 (the “Act”) by the Petitioners/ Complainants challenging the Impugned orders dated 29.05.2023, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (‘State Commission’), pertaining to five First Appeals Nos. A/16/64, A/16/65, A/16/66, A/16/69 and A/16/70 respectively. The State Commission, in response to these five Appeals filed by the Petitioners/ Complainants, upheld the orders dated 15.12.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandleshwar (M.P.) ("District Forum"), wherein the Complaints filed by the Complainants were dismissed as time-barred by limitation.

2.      The sole issue in these five Revision Petitions concerns the validity of the lower forum's decision to dismiss all five Complaints on the grounds of being time-barred by limitation.

3.      Since the facts and questions of law involved in all the Revision Petitions are substantially similar, except for minor variations in Dates, events and policy number, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. To facilitate clarity and convenience, First Appeal No. 64 of 2016 shall be considered as the primary / lead case, with the facts outlined below being extracted from Consumer Complaint No. 124/2013.

4.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as they were placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum and State Commission. District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Khargone is a registered co-operative bank (Complainant No. 1) and Tribal Service Cooperative Society Moolthan, District Khargone is a co-operative society affiliated with the said bank (Complainant No. 2). Whereas, the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Khargone is referred to as OP-1 and National Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office is OP-2.

5.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainants, are that they obtained a 'Master Bankers' Indemnity Policy No. 46/12/0010/97 from the OP Insurance Company, which was procured through the Complainants Bank itself, with the Bank as the beneficiary. During 1997-1998, an employee, Mr. Shivaram Yadav of Multhan organization, allegedly committed certain financial irregularities and embezzled funds from the A/c of Complainant No.2. Consequently, the Complainant Bank had forwarded a letter No. 10077 dated 06.02.1998 and filed an insurance claim with the OPs. However, the OPs repudiated the claim on 31.03.2000 citing non-production of documents and later closed the claim file of the Complainants. It wasn't until 2004 that the Complainants became aware of the OPs' repudiation of their insurance claim.

6.      Subsequently, from 29.04.2004 to 18.06.2011, the Complainants made numerous attempts to resolve their insurance claim with the OPs, but received no response, and the OPs failed to settle the claim. Consequently, aggrieved by these events, the Complainants filed a Complaint Case No. 124 of 2013 before the learned District Forum on 11.09.2013, seeking compensation amounting to Rs.9,12,000/- along with 12% interest and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs.

7.      In reply before the Ld. District Forum, the OPs contended that the policy number provided by the Complainant in the complaint is incomplete, and no insurance verification for the year 1997-98 is available in the OPs records. The Complainants failed to submit a copy of the insurance policy issued for the said year. Due to lapse of over nine years, no records pertaining to it are available with the OPs. They highlighted that the complaint was filed almost 12 years after the incident, and letters and reminders sent by them in 2011 was about 7 years after the loss occurred. The OPs contended that the complaint was grossly barred by time, rendering the complaint non-entertainable. Additionally, they noted that some claims were previously presented by the Complainants against the OPs before the Court of Joint Registrar Cooperative Institute, Indore, which were rejected. The policy of the National Insurance Company provided by the Complainant was acknowledged, but due to non-payment, the related claim file was rejected, as notified in letters dated 31.03.2000 and 06.07.2004. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the complaint as time-barred, asserting that the Complainant is not entitled to receive any damages from OPs.

8.      The learned District Forum vide Order dated 15.12.2015 dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it was barred by limitation. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Complainant filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission vide order dated 29.05.2023, upheld the decision of the District Forum. As a sequel, the Petitioners filed the present Revision Petition No. 2454 of 2023.

9.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Complainants are adversely affected due to the orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission. While the repudiation communication was received by them, in good faith, they continued to correspond with the OPs to somehow settle the claim. The delay occasioned due to limitation in understanding the gravity and hope that the OPs will settle the claim. With due regard to the scope for understanding of gravity by the Complainant Society and the adverse impact of the claim repudiation, he sought the delay to be condoned and the matter be decided on merits.

10.    On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent asserted that the claim repudiation was notified to the Complainants in the year 2000 itself and was reiterated in the year 2004. Whereas, without any plausible explanation, the Complainants sought to file a Consumer Complaint after lapse of over 13 years. Merely because of the fact that the Complainants continued to correspond with the OPs does not extend the period of limitation to file the complaint and there is no scope for claiming continuous cause of action cannot in the present case. He sought the Revision Petition to be dismissed.

11.    I have examined the pleadings, associated documents placed

on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for both parties.

12.    Admittedly, it is the case wherein the insurance claim preferred by the Complainants on 06.02.1998 was repudiated by the OPs insurer vide letter dated 31.03.2000. The notice of said rejection was again served to the Complainants vide letter dated 06.07.2004. Despite this, the complaint in question was filed by the Complainants on 11.09.2013, i.e. after the lapse of over 13 years, which is clearly time-barred by limitation as per the Act. It has also been clarified that in the order of the learned District Forum that the witness for the Complainant had accepted the receipt of the repudiation letter. Therefore, in such a situation, the cause of action to the Complainant had arisen in the year 2000 itself.

13.    The main issues in question are weather the complaint is barred by limitation and whether the Complainants justified the delay to the satisfaction of the learned District Commission and the learned State Commission?

14.    Both the District Forum and the State Commission examined the facts and found that the complaint was filed after lapse of over 13 years after the claim was repudiated and that the complaint cannot be entertained due to clear stipulations regarding the limitation period as per the Act. The timeline of events and the acknowledgment of the receipt of the repudiation notice in 2000/ 2004 firmly establish that the cause of action arose in that year and thus the complaints in the case are grossly time barred. The District Forum's and State Commission's decisions reflect a consistent interpretation of the limitation laws as established and upheld.

15.    The Contention of the Petitioners that their consistent and continuous communications with the OPs have the effect of extending the limitation period is untenable in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geo Miller & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., (2020) 14 SCC 643, wherein it was held as under:-

“21. Applying the aforementioned principles to the present case, we find ourselves in agreement with the finding of the High Court that the appellant's cause of action in respect of Arbitration Applications Nos. 25/2003 and 27/2003, relating to the work orders dated 7-10-1979 and 4-4-1980 arose on 8-2-1983, which is when the final bill handed over to the respondent became due. Mere correspondence of the appellant by way of writing letters/reminders to the respondent subsequent to this date would not extend the time of limitation….”                                (emphasis supplied)

16.    Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), CA No. 2067/2022 has held:-  

7.  Section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the consumer fora thus:

"24A. Limitation period - (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint 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 reasons for condoning such delay."

8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires 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 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 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.

17.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v National Insurance Co. & Anr., CA No. 4962/2002 wherein it was held as under:-

“19. A bare reading of the impugned order shows that all these factual aspects have been duly taken into consideration by the Commission and we are in complete agreement with the finding by the Commission that the filing of claim by the Bank on 14th July, 1988, would not have, in any way, helped the appellant. On their 1 3own showing, for the first time, only on 6th November, 1992 and then again on 26th October, 1995, the appellant had requested the Insurance Company to issue claim form to enable them to prefer a claim which request was declined by the Insurance Company on 21st March, 1996. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Insurance Company’s reply dated 21st March, 1996 to the legal notice dated 4th January, 1996, declining to issue the forms for preferring a claim after a lapse of more than four years of the date of fire, resulted in extending the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 24A of the Act.  We have no hesitation in holding that the complaint filed on 24th October, 1997 and that too without an application for condonation of delay was manifestly barred by limitation and the Commission was justified in dismissing it on that short ground.

18.    It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (which are pari materia to Section 21(b) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due examination of the facts and records, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986. I would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

19.    The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022, it was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under: -

"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

20.    Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, has held that:-

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally  or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

21.    Based on the discussion above after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petitions. With the above Order, all the Five Revision Petition Nos.2454-2458 of 2023 are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the State Commission is upheld.

22.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

23.    All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.