1. The present revision petitioner has been filed by the petitioner against respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 18.01.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), in FA/283/2015 in which order dated 27.02.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tis Hazari (hereinafter referred to as “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No.149/2013 was challenged, interalia praying for setting aside the order dated 18.01.2021 of the State Commission. 2. Petitioner has challenged the said order of the State Commission mainly on the following grounds: (a) That the State Commission erred in law by stating that the cause of action accrued in the case on 10.10.2010, when the fire took place in the insured premises. (b) That the State Commission wrongly reached the conclusion that the petitioner has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. (c) That the District Forum and as well as the State Commission Delhi proceeded with the case on the wrong presumption that cause of action arose when the fire took place at the premises of the petitioner. (d) That the State Commission failed to appreciate that the petitioner has not made a claim of Rs.1,05,82,697/- before the district forum but only Rs.7,94,000/- which fell short of settled claim. 3. Heard counsels for both sides. In this case, the complaint of the petitioner herein was dismissed being time barred. State Commission also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein on the same ground, agreeing with the orders of the District Forum. Both the fora below took the cause of action date as the date of incident/fire which is midnight of 13-14.10.2010, the complaint having been filed on 04.07.2013 was deemed beyond statutory limitation period of two years. It is the case of the petitioner herein that they submitted a claim for Rs.106.00 lakhs, but the surveyor after making deductions had recommended an amount of Rs.67.16 lakhs, but the Insurance Company released an amount of Rs.59.22 lakhs. The discharge voucher for receipt of Rs.59.22 lakhs was signed on 21.10.2011 as recorded in the order of the District Forum. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that the cause of action arises when he receives the claim amount from the Insurance Company and feels aggrieved with the amount received as against the amount claimed. We are in agreement with the contentions of the petitioner herein/complainant before the District Forum that in an insurance case, where a claim is submitted to the Insurance Company and the same is passed for a lower amount than claimed after a certain period of processing, and if the claimant is aggrieved by the decision of the Insurance Company in terms of passing of the claim for a lower amount than the claimed, his cause of action starts only when he is intimated about the passing of the claim/receipt of the claim, which is for a lower amount than he claimed, as till this date, without knowing as to whether the Insurance Company will pass his claim fully or reject the same or pass it partly, he cannot have a grievance/cause of action against the Insurance Company. 4. State Commission while concluding that in the case of insurance against Fire, cause of action starts on the date of fire, has interalia, relied upon judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “SBI vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries II [(2009) 5 SCC 121]” and “Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. (2009) 7 SCC 768”. In Kandimalla (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: “18. The term “cause of action” is neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but is of wide import. It has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. Generally, it is described as “bundle of facts’, which if proved or admitted entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. Pithily stated, “cause of action” means the cause of action for which the suit is brought. “Cause of action” is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. (See Sidramappa V. Rajashetty). In the context of limitation with reference to a fire insurance policy, undoubtedly, the date of accrual of cause of action has to be the date on which the fire breaks out.” It is to be noted that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the one in the Kandimalla (Supra). The above stated observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court, with respect to cause of action being from date of fire was in the context of delay in filing the claim by the complainant before the insurance company, while in the present case, the claim by Insurance Company was settled for an amount lesser than the one claimed/recommended by the surveyor. In Kandimalla (Supra) the fire took place on 22.03.1988/23.03.1988 and the complainant, for the first time, on 06.11.1992, wrote to the Insurance Company, requesting for claim forms to enable them to make a claim for the loss occurred due to fire. In this case, till this date (06.11.1992), the complainant had not made any claim with the Insurance Company for the loss suffered in the fire on 23.03.1988. It is to be noted that State Commission in para 12 of its order has stated: “In State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 13 has observed that in the context of insurance against fire it means when the fire took place.” But B.S. Agricultural (Supra) was not in the context of a fire insurance claim. It was in the context of non-receipt of payment or the documents from the bank. The complainant had sent to banks 7 bills for collection of payment and remittance of proceeds to the complainant and the bank was instructed to return the bills and GRs if the drawee did not pay the bill up to 07.06.1994. Hon’ble Court observed, in this case cause of action occurred on 07.06.1994 when it did not receive the payment nor the documents. Perhaps State Commission has wrongly referred to para 13 of B.S. Agricultural Industries (Supra) instead of para 18 of Kandimalla (Supra) which we have reproduced above. 5. Even under the Limitation Act, 1963, the schedule containing period of limitation for any suit, appeal at application etc, in the context of insurance policy, states the time from which limitation period begins to run as follows: | Description of suit | Period of Limitation | Time from which period begins to run | 44 | (a) On a policy of insurance when the sum insured is payable after proof of the death has been given to or received by the insurers. (b) On a policy of insurance when the sum insured is payable after proof of the loss has been given to or received by the insurers. | Three years Three years | The date of the death of the deceased, or where the claim on the policy is denied, either partly or wholly, the date of such denial. 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. |
44(b) above makes it clear that cases where claim on the policy is denied, either partly or wholly, the limitation starts from the date of such denial (of course the limitation period to file complaint would be two years from the cause of action in accordance with Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986). 6. Hence in our considered opinion, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the cause of action in favour of the complainant/petitioner herein starts when the Insurance Company conveys to him the passing of the claim/releases the claim to him. Although the communication from the Insurance Company conveying passing of the claim for Rs.59.22 lakhs or copy of the cheque for Rs.59.22 lakhs is not on record, however, the District Forum has recorded that the discharge voucher for Rs.59.22 lakhs was signed on 21.10.2011. Hence counted from this date, filing of the complaint on 04.07.2013 is well within the limitation period of two years. Hence both District Forum and State Commission went wrong in concluding that the complaint was filed after the limitation period. Accordingly, the order of the State Commission cannot be sustained, and is hereby set aside. 7. We have carefully perused the letter dated 14.11.2011 from the petitioner addressed to the Insurance Company in which he is claiming an additional amount of Rs.7.94 lakhs only i.e. the difference between the amount recommended by the surveyor viz. Rs.67.16 lakhs and the amount released by the Insurance Company i.e. Rs.59.22 lakhs. During the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he did not press for his full claim of Rs.106 lakhs as per his claim, as with a view to end litigation, he decided to accept the report of the surveyor. Hence even now he is insisting on release of additional amount of Rs.7.94 lakhs only i.e. the difference between the amount recommended by the surveyor and the amount released by the Insurance Company. As State Commission has not gone into the merits of the case in terms of admissibility of such additional amount of Rs.7.94 lakhs, we are of the view that this issue can be best addressed on merits by the State Commission after evaluating the evidence before it/before the District Forum and pursuing the surveyor's report and after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for fresh consideration of the prayer of the petitioner herein/complainant before the District Forum for additional claim on merits. The State Commission may dispose off the case as soon as possible, preferably within three months from the date of first hearing before it. Both the parties to appear before the State Commission on 20.05.2024 thereafter the State Commission will have liberty to fix further dates of hearing as per its own convenience. 8. RP is disposed off accordingly. 9. Pending IAs if any, also stands disposed off. |
