JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

            This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 15.01.2013 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner complainant against the order of the District Forum .

2.         Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that petitioner firm filed a consumer complainant no. 41 of 2012 on the same cause of action in the State Commission Haryana, Panchkula.  The State Commission was of the view that the complaint pertain to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.  Accordingly, the State Commission vide its order dated 24.07.2012 dismissed the complaint with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the District Forum having competent jurisdiction within 45 days of the passing of the said order dated 24.07.2012. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Gurgaon.  The complaint, however, was filed after the expiry of 45 days  time given by the State Commission.  The District Forum taking  note of the fact that the subsequent complaint was filed after the expiry of 45 days from the date of the order of the State Commission dismissed the complaint.

3.         Being aggrieved of the above said order of the District Forum dated 19.12.2012, the petitioner approached the State Commission in appeal and the State Commission vide order dated 15.01.2013 dismissed the appeal in limine.  Relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced as under:

“Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any force in his contention because appellant  has miserably failed to mention that any action was taken by him against the counsel for his fault.  It is a matter of great concern that counsel who was representing the appellant in the instant case, did not appear on the date fixed, despite the knowledge of the listing of the case before the Commission.  Even thereafter, he did not take any step to know the fate of his case.  At the same time it cannot be ignored that appellant has also not shown his keen interest to know the status of his case.  This negligence on the part of the appellant and his counsel led to the expiry of the period, which was granted to the appellant to approach the District Forum for the redressal of his grievances vide order dated 24.07.2012 within 45 days.  The  plea taken by the complainant that his counsel did not inform him the status of the case is not helpful, because it has been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments that engagement of the counsel in the case pending before the consumer fora are optional. Therefore, in the absence of his counsel, appellant complainant himself could collect the copy of the order and could approach the District Forum within the stipulated period for the redressal of his grievances. But no effort was made by him in this regard. Taking into fact the negligent act of the complainant we feel that District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint vide its impugned order, which does not call for any interference in this appeal.”

4.         Mr. A.K.Tandon, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that it runs into the teeth of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, the Act) which deals with the limitation for filing the complaint.  Expanding on the argument, learned counsel has contended that as per section 24-A of the Act, period of limitation for filing the consumer complaint is two years form the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Counsel further contended that in the instant case, the insurance claim of the petitioner was repudiated by respondent no.1 vide repudiation letter dated 03.11.2011.  Therefore, the petitioner could have maintained his consumer complaint till 03.11.2013.  The subsequent consumer complaint which was dismissed by the District Forum was filed in December 2012 i.e. before the expiry of period of two years period of limitation.  Therefore, the District Forum was not justified in dismissing the complaint.  It is contended that the State Commission has ignored the aforesaid aspect while dismissing the appeal.  Counsel has thus urged us to accept the revision and restore the complaint.

5.         Learned counsel for respondent no.1 on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order.  He has contended that since the State Commission vide its order dated 24.07.2012 while dismissing the complaint has granted liberty to the petitioner to file complaint before the court of competent jurisdiction within 45 days, the complainant was required to comply with the direction and as he has failed to comply with the direction, the order of dismissal of complaint is justified.  Similar stand is taken by counsel for respondent no.2

6.         We find merit in the contention of the petitioner.  Section 24-A of the Act deals with the limitation in filing of consumer complaint and it provides that a consumer complaint can be filed within a period of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.  Admittedly, in this case, cause of action for filing of consumer complaint arose on 03.11.2011 when the letter repudiating the claim of the petitioner was issued.  Thus, under statute the petitioner had a legal right to file his consumer complaint upto the period of two years i.e. 03.11.2013.  Admittedly, the second consumer complaint before the District Forum was filed in December 2012.  As such, it was within the period of limitation of two years. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the State Commission has not dealt with the first consumer complaint on merits and it was rejected on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.  However, the State Commission added a rider that complainant could file fresh complaint on same cause of action before the District Forum of competent jurisdiction within 45 days.  The said 45 days period was well before the expiry of period of two years limitation.  Therefore, in our view, the State Commission by adding those superfluous words in its order dated 24.07.2012 reduced the statutory period of limitation for filing the complaint. This amounts to curtailing the right given to the complainant by Section 24-A of the Act.,  which in our view is not proper.  Both the foras below have ignored the fact that the statute provide two years limitation for filing the consumer complaint.  Thus, in our view, the foras below have exceeded their jurisdiction while dismissing the complaint filed within the period of limitation of two years.

 7.        In view of the discussion above, we allow the revision petition; set aside the orders of the foras below; restore the complaint and remand the matter back to the District Forum concerned to decide the complaint on merits.

8.         Parties to appear before the State Commission on 04.12.2014.