Heard Mr. Harikesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Amrreeta Swaarup, learned counsel for respondent no.1, and Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

This revision petition even though was admitted on 16.12.2015, yet no orders had been passed on the Delay Condonation Application No. 9039 of 2015.    

The petition seems to have been dismissed in default twice and consequently it was again admitted after restoration on 29.03.2019.  We do not find any order condoning the reported delay of 28 days in the filing of the revision petition.

The delay condonation application has been heard by us and we find that sufficient cause has been shown.  The delay condonation application is allowed and the revision petition shall be treated to be within time.

Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, has advanced his submissions contending that both the Fora below have erroneously construed the period of limitation in terms of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act) and therefore have arrived at a wrong conclusion, dismissing the complaint as barred by time. 

His submission is that a Combine Harvester belonging to the petitioner/complainant was insured with the respondent no.1 and was being transported on a Tractor Trolla from Mathura to Palwal through Aligarh when on 24.03.2011 the vehicle upturned, as a result whereof the Harvester fell down in a pit.  The driver of the vehicle went away for seeking help and repair of his tractor trolla while the Harvester remained lying at the spot. The petitioner/complainant had gone to Mathura for arranging some private vehicle to tow his Harvester but when he came back he found that the Harvester was missing and apparently it had been stolen.  The matter was reported to the Police Station, as alleged, with P.S. Yamunapar, Mathura but since a formal FIR was not registered, the petitioner/complainant had to move before the competent Court at Mathura as a result whereof an FIR No. 73 dated 24.09.2011 came to be formally registered.  Copies of the said FIRs were filed by the petitioner/complainant, where-after he instituted Complaint Case No. 67 of 2012 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Palwal (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission).

The said complaint asserted in para-10 and then in para-13 states that the petitioner/complainant had staked his claim before the Insurance Company which was declined.  Paras-10 and 13 of the complaint are reproduced hereunder:

“10.    That the complainant approached the opposite party regarding the insurance claim of his above Harvestor but the opposite party told the complainant that our investigating officer is investigating the matter and after receiving the final report from investigating officer he will pass the claim within one month.”

13.     That the opposite party illegally and dishonestly declined the claim of the above Harvestor of the complainant.  Hence the complainant has sufficient cause of action to file the present complaint against the opposite party, hence this complaint.”

A written statement was filed on behalf of the Insurance Company and, in reply thereto, there were denials but at the same time para-10 was replied by stating that it is a matter of record and para-13 was replied as hereunder:

“13.    That para no. 13 of the complaint is wrong and denied.  It is wrong to suggest that the opposite party has illegally and dishonestly declined the claim of the complaint regarding Harvester.  It is wrong and denied that the complainant is having any sufficient cause of action to the file the present complaint against the opposite party.”

The complaint was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh case vide order dated 21.08.2014.  The said order of the District Commission is extracted hereunder:

“In view of statement given by complainant, the present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn on technical ground with liberty to file the fresh case.  File be consigned to record room.  Cost paid to .... counsel.”

The petitioner/complainant, instead of filing a fresh complaint, approached the Lok Adalat where his request was turned down, with liberty to approach the Consumer Forum vide order dated 05.02.2015 which is extracted hereunder:

“The petitioner has petitioned this Court u/s 22 C(I) of Legal Services Authority Act 1987, hereinafter referred to as the Act for short, for seeking a direction to the respondent no.1 Oriental Insurance Company to pay him a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- for the damage caused to his harvester bearing engine No. 857382, chasis no. 7152815 which was insured, against the damage caused to it in an accident by the respondent vide insurance policy No. 2740/31/11/3191.

The respondent having put up appearance filed an application for seeking dismissal of the petition on the ground that this petition has not been filed at pre-litigative stage.  It was further pleaded that the petitioner had file a petition u/s 12 before Consumer Court and the same was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh petition vide order dated 21.8.2014.  Copy of that order was placed on file.

Confronted with the above application the petitioner could urge anything before this Court to rebut the contention.  Accordingly, we hold that this petition is not maintainable as the same has not been filed at pre-litigative stage.  The petition is accordingly returned to the petitioner granting him liberty to file a fresh petition before the Consumer Forum.  File be consigned to the records.”

It is thereafter that the complaint, giving rise to the present revision petition, being Complaint Case No. 166 of 2015 was filed where in para-16 and once again in para-20 it was categorically asserted that the claim of the petitioner/complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 13.06.2013 by the Insurance Company.  The complaint was however dismissed by the impugned order of the District Commission dated 31.03.2015 immediately on its institution on 09.03.2015 on the ground of delay.  The complaint was dismissed without issuing notice to the Insurance Company.

The petitioner/complainant preferred First Appeal No. 445 of 2015 before the SCDRC Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission).  The appeal also once again came to be dismissed recording 13.06.2013 as the date of repudiation by the Insurance Company vide order dated 25.05.2015. 

This is how the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission praying for setting aside the impugned orders on the ground that the computation of limitation made by the Fora below does not conform to the facts of the cause of action that was existing and was continuing including the fact that the claim had been repudiated by the Insurance Company on 13.06.2013.  There was no delay, as such there was no bar under Section 24A of the 1986 Act to entertain the claim in the background above.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company however opposed the contention urging that the petitioner/complainant had failed to file the letter of repudiation on record and therefore its non-consideration cannot vitiate the impugned orders.  Even otherwise, the petitioner/complainant had withdrawn his earlier complaint and in such circumstances, the period of two years had already lapsed long before, hence the second complaint was barred by limitation in terms of Section 24A of the 1986 Act.  She therefore submits that the lack of pleadings and any evidence in support of the contentions raised does not make out any case of illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Commission.

Having considered the submissions raised, we find that the petitioner/complainant had bonafidely lodged his first complaint no. 67 of 2012 which was well within the limitation period.  The said complaint was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh complaint which order was passed on 21.08.2014.  The petitioner/complainant seems to have on some legal advice though it proper to approach the Lok Adalat for redressal which request appears to have been rightly declined vide order dated 05.02.2015 once again with the liberty to approach the Consumer Forum.  The petitioner/complainant therefore had a valid narrative explaining the time consumed in seeking access to his remedies in law. The pursuit was bonafide and the petitioner/complainant was not idling away time casually.  Availing of the liberty granted, the petitioner/complainant instituted the second complaint immediately on 29.04.2015 after the order of the Lok Adalat dated 05.02.2015. 

These facts having not been disputed, the complaint was instituted on 29.04.2015.  In our considered opinion, the said institution of the complaint was close in proximity and even otherwise the cause of action was continuing.  It is further supported by the fact that if the claim was repudiated on 13.06.2013 by the Insurance Company, then in that event the petitioner/complainant also had a fresh cause of action and the period of two years from the said date would expire only on 13.06.2015.  The second complaint was filed much before that on 29.04.2015.

In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SBI v. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I), (2009) 5 SCC 121 which holds that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 24A of the 1986 Act is mandatory subject to any valid explanation being given by a complainant for having arrived at the Commission after the expiry of two years of the date on which the cause of action arose.  Nonetheless, even otherwise, as indicated above, the cause of action was still continuing and was available with the repudiation of the claim on 13.06.2013.  This date of repudiation remains undisputed.  This aspect of a continuing cause of action has been once again explained by the Apex Court in the case of Samruddhi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (P) Ltd., (2022) 4 SCC 103 where the legal injury caused if existing and continuing has been held to be available to a consumer in the event he complains of any deficiency in service provided the cause of action is continuing. 

In the light of the conclusions drawn hereinabove, we find that the petitioner/complainant stands protected on both counts i.e. on a calculation in terms of Section 24A of the 1986 Act and also the explanation given in pursuing the litigation and filing the second complaint upon the repudiation of the claim in 2013.

Consequently, for all the reasons hereinabove, the impugned order of the State commission dated 25.05.2015 as well as the order of the District Commission dated 31.03.2015 are set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Commission.  Complaint Case no. 166 of 2015 shall stand restored before the District Commission.  The District Commission shall now proceed after giving opportunity to the concerned parties for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

The revision petition is accordingly allowed.