Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 23.3.2010 in Civil Appeal No.1922/2008 has remanded this case back to this Commission. Petitioner, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 28.4.2005 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Appeals No.1491 & 1492 of 1999 whereby the State Commission has upheld the order passed by the District Forum. The facts, in short, are that in the month of May 1993, one M/s.Auto Mughals Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad hired the services of the petitioner herein for transporting a consignment of goods from Aurangabad to Faridabad, Haryana. As per allegations made in the complaint, the goods were delivered in Faridabad in wet condition by the petitioner on 30.7.1993. Eicher Tractors Ltd. had taken a transit policy from the National Insurance Co. Ltd. As the goods were received in damaged condition, M/s.Eicher Tractors Ltd. recovered the amount from the National Insurance Co. Ltd. On payment of the insured amount, Eicher Tractors Ltd. gave a letter of subrogation in favour of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Eicher Tractors Ltd., through the National Insurance Co. Ltd., filed two separate complaints before the District Forum. Petitioner, on being served, filed its written statement taking preliminary objection that the District Forum did not have the territorial jurisdiction, as no cause of action had arisen in any part of the State of Delhi. The complaint was contested on merits as well. It was contended that the complaint was not maintainable on behalf of M/s.Eicher Tractors as it had already given a letter of subrogation in favour of the insurance company. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.16,000/- and Rs.79,000/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum to the complainant. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed two separate appeals before the State Commission. State Commission, relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Oberai Forwarding Agency vs.New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. – (2000)2 SCC 407 dismissed the appeal modifying the rate of interest from 15% to 9%. State Commission did not decide the question regarding territorial jurisdiction. Since both the complaints were disposed of by a common order, petitioner has filed only one Revision Petition challenging the order passed in both the complaints and the appeals. This Commission allowed the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner vide order dated 19.11.2007 and held that the complaint filed by the insurer on behalf of the insured, on the basis of the assignment-cum-subrogation letter, was not maintainable in view of the decision in Oberai Forwarding Agency case (supra). Oberai Forwarding Agency case (supra) was decided by a three-Judge Bench, in which it has been held as under : “With the distinction between subrogation and assignment in view, let us examine the Letter of Subrogation executed by the second respondent in favour of the first respondent. Its operative portion may be broken up into two, namely, (i) we hereby assign, transfer and abandon to you all our rights against the Railway Administration Road transport carriers or other persons whatsoever, caused or arising by reason of the said damage or loss and grant you full power to take and use all lawful ways and means in your own name and otherwise at your risk and expense to recover the claim for the said damage or loss; and (ii) we hereby subrogate to you the same rights as we have in consequence of or arising from the said loss or damage. By the first clause the second respondent assigned and transferred to the first respondent all its rights arising by reason of the loss of the consignment. It granted the first respondent full power to take lawful means to recover the claim for the loss, and to do so in its own name. If it were a mere subrogation, first, the word assigned would not be used. Secondly, there would not be a transfer of all the second respondents rights in respect of the loss but the transfer would be limited to the recovery of the amount paid by the first respondent to the second respondent. Thirdly, the first respondent would not be entitled to take steps to recover the loss in its own name; the steps for recovery would have to be taken in the name of the second respondent. Thus, by the first clause there was an assignment in favour of the first respondent. The second clause, undoubtedly, used the word subrogate, but it conferred upon the first respondent the same rights that the second respondent had in consequence of or arising from the said loss or damage, which meant that the transfer was not limited to the quantum paid by the first respondent to the second respondent but encompassed all the compensation for the loss. Even by the second clause, therefore, there was an assignment in favour of the first respondent.” Correctness of the Oberai Forwarding Agency case (supra) was challenged and the matter was referred to the Constitution Bench of five Judges in the case of Economic Transport Organization, Delhi vs. Charan Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. and Economic Transport Organization, Delhi vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., the Constitution Bench has overturned the decision of Oberai Forwarding Agency case (supra) and held as under : “51. We therefore answer the questions raised as follows: (a) The insurer, as subrogee, can file a complaint under the Act either in the name of the assured (as his attorney-holder) or in the joint names of the assured and the insurer for recovery of the amount due from the service provider. The insurer may also request the assured to sue the wrongdoer (service provider). (b) Even if the letter of subrogation executed by the assured in favour of the insurer contains in addition to the words of subrogation, any words of assignment, the complaint would be maintainable so long as the complaint is in the name of the assured and the insurer figures in the complaint only as an attorney-holder or subrogee of the assured. (c) The insurer cannot in its own name maintain a complaint before the Consumer Forum under the Act, even it its right is traced to the terms of a letter of subrogation-cum-assignment executed by the assured. (d) Oberai is not good law insofar as it construes a letter of subrogation-cum-assignment, as a pure and simple assignment. But to the extent it holds that an insurer alone cannot file a complaint under the Act, the decision is correct.” In view of the judgement of the Constitution Bench in Economic Transport case (supra), the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Eicher Tractors and held that the complaint filed by Eicher Tractors was maintainable and consequently the case has been remanded back for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly concedes that in view of the judgement of the Constitution Bench in Economic Transport case (supra), the complaint filed by the respondent would be maintainable. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint filed by the respondent was barred by limitation and the District Forum at Delhi did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of the cause of action had arisen at Delhi. That thought these points had been argued before the State Commission, the State Commission did not record its finding on either of these two issues. That specific grounds regarding limitation and jurisdiction had been taken by the petitioner in the grounds of appeal before the State Commission. Petitioner, in the grounds of Revision Petition, has also averred that the State Commission has failed to decide the points regarding limitation as well as the territorial jurisdiction. Supreme Court of India in State Bank of India vs. M/s.B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) – 1(2009)2 CPC 1 has held that the provisions of Section 24A are 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. That 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. That the consumer fora were debarred from entertaining any complaint, which was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Para-8 of the said judgement reads as under : “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.” Point regarding territorial jurisdiction, although specifically raised by the petitioner and decided by the District Forum, has not been considered by the State Commission. Point regarding limitation has also not been decided. Since these two points have not been decided by the State Commission, we are constrained to set aside the order of the State Commission and remand the case to the State Commission to decide the point regarding limitation as well as the territorial jurisdiction afresh in accordance in law. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 18th April 2011. Since this is a very old matter, we would request the State Commission to dispose it of expeditiously and preferably within 4 months from the date of first appearance of the parties. Petitioner is put at liberty to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited by it before this Commission. | 
