PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short, ‘the State Commission’) dated 8.11.2012 whereby the State Commission accepted the appeal preferred by the opposite party/Insurance Company against the order of the District Forum and set aside the said order holding that the complaint was barred by limitation.

2.       Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the complainant’s truck No. HR 69-7163 was insured with the respondent/opposite party. The said truck was stolen on 3.5.2008 and FIR in this regard was registered at police station Jhajhar vide FIR No.288 under Section 379 IPC on 13.6.2008. The complainant lodged his insurance claim with the opposite party but despite of several visits to the office of the opposite party the respondent/opposite party failed to settle the claim. Consequently, the petitioner was compelled to file consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.       The respondent/opposite party in its written statement took a preliminary objection that the complaint was pre-mature as the claim of the complainant had not been repudiated. On merits respondent took the plea that theory of the theft of the truck was false and the complainant had obtained untraced report in collusion with the police. It was also claimed that the complainant had failed to intimate the respondent- Company about the theft of vehicle within a reasonable period.

4.       District Forum, Sonepat on consideration of evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent was deficient in service and allowed the complaint with following reliefs: -

“Accordingly, it is directed to the respondents to make the payment of Rs.10,40,000/- (Rs.Ten Lacs forty thousands) to the complainant alongwith interest at rate 9% per annum from the date of the theft of truck no.HR69/7163 and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.Two thousands) for rendering deficient services, unnecessary harassment and further to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rs. Two thousands) under the head of litigation expenses. The present complaint stands allowed with the direction to the respondent to make compliance of this order.

            It is made clear here that the complainant shall complete the formalities and shall submit the required documents and shall transfer the RC of the truck no.HR69/7163 in the name of the respondent insurance company for the settlement of his claim at the earliest possible.

            With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed and the respondent is directed to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of passing of this order.”

5.       Being aggrieved of the impugned order respondent preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner as barred by limitation vide the impugned order. The State Commission, however did not address the merits of the case.

6.       Being aggrieved of the finding of the State Commission petitioner has preferred this revision petition. Learned Shri T.P.S. Teji, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is erroneous as the State Commission has failed to appreciate that as per the allegations in the written statement the insurance claim of the petitioner was still under the consideration of the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that since the claim was not repudiated the State Commission had fallen in error in holding that the complaint was barred by limitation.

7.       Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has contended that the State Commission has rightly held that the cause of action arose in favour of the complainant on the date on which the theft took place and since the complaint was filed on 4.2.2011 i.e. after the expiry of three years and seven months the State Commission was right in holding that it was barred by limitation in view of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8.       We have considered the rival contentions. On perusal it is seen that the State Commission in support of its conclusion has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced thus: -

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP) relied upon its earlier decision in State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP)= JT 2009 (4) SC 191 and in para No.12 of the judgment held as under:

“12      Recently, in State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP)=JT 2009 (4) SC 191, this Court, while dealing with the same provisions, has held:

“8        It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is premptory 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 the 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.”

9.       The Supreme Court in the above noted judgment has interpreted the scope of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. There can be no dispute regarding the legal position enumerated in the above judgment. The import of the said judgment is that a consumer complaint should be filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. Thus, the crucial issue in this revision petition is as to when the cause of action has accrued. Admittedly, this is a case of insurance claim which was still under consideration of the insurance company. Therefore, till the insurance company had taken the decision on the complaint, the cause of action for filing the complaint continued. Therefore, in our considered view the State Commission has committed a grave error in holding that the complaint was barred by limitation. As such, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

10.     Consequently, we accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order of the State Commission and remand the matter back to the State Commission to decide the appeal on merits after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties.

11.     Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 21.10.2013.