State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vidheshwary D/O Phulchand Nemiwal vs Reliance Super Limited on 22 July, 2019
1 jkT; miHkksDrk fookn izfrrks"k vk;ksx] cSap la- 1]jkt0 t;iqj vihy la[;k %& 469@2018 fons'ojh vihykFkhZ cuke fjyk;Ul lqij fyfeVsM ,oa vU;
izR;FkhZx.k le{k % ekuuh; Jh dey dqekj ckxMh] lnL; ¼U;kf;d½ ekuuh; lnL; Jherh ehuk esgrk mifLFkr %& vihykFkhZ dh vkSj ls Jh eksj eqdqV xksBoky vf/koDRkk izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls Jh va'kqeku feJk vf/koDrk vkns'k fnukad 22 tqykbZ] 2019 jkT; vk;ksx jktLFkku t;iqj ¼}kjk Jh dey dqekj ckxM+h] lnL; ¼U;kf;d½ ;g vihy fons'ojh dh vksj ls fjyk;Ul lqij fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds fo:) ftyk miHkksDrk fookn izfrrks"k eap] t;iqj prqFkZ] t;iqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 12 twu] 2018 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh xbZ A izdj.k ds rF; bl izdkj gS fd ifjokfnuh us foi{kh la[;k 1] tks foi{kh la[;k 2 ds mRiknksa dk foØ; djrk gSa] ls fnukad 22-03-2014 dks foi{kh la[;k 2 }kjk fufeZr Parle-G Gluco Biscuits ds 75 xzke ds nks iSdsV tfj;s fcy 2 la[;k C3501 #0065 S02101 R002 Ø; fd;s Fks ysfdu mDr fcfLdV ds iSdsV dk fu/kkZfjr otu 75 xzke ds LFkku ij 66-7 xzke gh ik;k x;k tcfd foi{kh la[;k 1 }kjk ifjokfnuh ls mDr fcfLdV ds iSdsV dh dher isVs ml ij vafdr ewY; 5@&:i;s olwy fd;s x;sA ifjokfnuh us foi{kh la[;k 1 ds deZpkfj;ksa ls mDr fcfLdV ds iSdsV~l dk otu de gksus ds ckjs esa iwNk rks foi{kh la[;k 1 ds deZpkfj;ksa us ifjokfnuh dks dksbZ larks"ktud tokc ugh fn;k vkSj u gh ifjokfnuh dh f'kdk;r ntZ dhA foi{kh la[;k 1 }kjk ifjokfnuh ls foØ; fd;s x;s 66-7 xzke ds mDr fcfLdV ds iSdsV~l dh dher isVs tks ewY; 5&5@&:i;s olwy fd;s x;s] mlds LFkku ij fcfLdV~l ds iSdsV dh dher 5&5@&:i;s ls 8-3&8-3 xzke fcfLdV dk ewY; Øe'k% 55&55 iSls vFkkZr~ 1-10 :i;s de olwy djuk pkfg;s FkkA bl izdkj foi{khx.k us ifjokfnuh dks fu/kkZfjr otu ls de otu dk fcfLdV~l ds iSdsV foØ; djds vkSj fcfLdV ds iSdsV dh dher isVs 1-10 :i;s vf/kd olwy djds vuqfpr O;kikj O;ogkj dj lsoknks"k dkfjr fd;k gSA foi{kh la[;k 1 dh vksj ls fn;s x;s tokc esa rF; of.kZr fd;s x;s gSa fd ifjokfnuh }kjk izLrqr fcy izn'kZ&1 ,oa fookfnr fcfLdV ds iSdsV dh iSfdax izn'kZ&2 ds e/; fdlh izdkj dk laca/k ugha gSaA ifjokfnuh us fookfnr fcy ds lanHkZ esa foi{khx.k ds fdlh deZpkjh ls u rks lEidZ fd;k o u gh fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ iwNrkN dh vr% foi{khx.k ds deZpkfj;ksa }kjk ifjokfnuh ls vHknz O;ogkj fd;s tkus dk iz'u gh mRiUu ugha gksrk gaSA ifjokfnuh dks lgh otu ,oa lgh ewY; dh oLrqvksa dk gh foØ; fd;k x;k gS o ifjokfnuh us iz'uxr oLrq dk otu fd;s tkus ds lac/a k esa dksbZ izek.k is'k ugha fd;k gSaA foi{kh la[;k 1 us vius tokc ifjokn esa ;g Hkh O;Dr fd;k gSa fd iz'uxr fcfLdV dh mRiknd ,oa forjd foi{kh la[;k 2 gS ,oa iSfdax dh iw .kZ izfØ;k foi{kh la[;k 2 dh gh gksrh gSa ftlesa foi{kh la[;k 1 dk dksbZ bUoksYoesUV ugh gksrk gSa A foi{kh la[;k 1 LVksj foi{kh la[;k 2 ds ifjokn esa of.kZr fcfLdV ds cUn iSdsV gh foØ; djrk gSa o ml ij vafdr ewY; gh ifjoknh ls fy;k x;k gSa A foi{kh la[;k 1 us iz'uxr fcfLdV dh dher isVs ifjokfnuh ls dksbZ vf/kd jkf'k olwy ugha djus] ifjokfnuh ds izfr dksbZ vuqfpr O;kikj O;ogkj ,oa lsoknks"k dkfjr ugha djus ds rF; of.kZr djrs gq, ifjokn [kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk dh gSaA 3 cgl lquh ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA ifjokfnuh us fnukad 22-03-2014 dks 75 xzke fcfLdV ds nks iSfdV [kjhns tks ikjys ds Fks] budk otu fd;k rks 66-7 xzke gh otu ik;k x;kA blidkj 1-10 :- T;knk olwy dj fy;sA ifjokn fnukad 22-03-2016 dks is'k fd;k x;k] /kkjk 24 ¼ , ½ 2 o"kZ dh fe;kn vof/k dk izko/kku gSA fe;kn vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dks ekus rks] ,d fnu tks ?kVuk gqbZ gS ml fnu dk fy;k tk;s rks ml fLFkfr esa fe;kn fnukad 21-03-2016 dks iwjh gks tk;sxhA ifjokn fnukad 22-03- 2016 dks is'k gqvk gSA ifjoknh us /kkjk 5 fe;kn vf/kfu;e dk izkFkZuk&i= Hkh is'k ugha fd;k gSA fe;kn ds laca/k esa II (2009)CPJ 29 (SC) STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. B.S. AGRICULGURAL INDUSTRIES esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fuEu fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS %& (I) (i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 24 A Limitation Complaint time barred Complainant carrying business of manufacturing and supply, sent bills to bank for collection of payment and remittance of proceeds-Instructed bank to return documents if not honoured by drawee by June 7, 1994- Cause of action accrued on June 7,1994, when complainant neither received demand draft, nor documents - Limitation began to run from June, 1994- Complaint filed on May 5, 1997, apparently time-barred Letters sent to bank and bank's reply is of no help to complainant Limitation cannot be extended by Bank's reply No application for condonation of delay filed No sufficient cause for delay shown Question of condonation of delay does not arise Limitation aspect not considered by Consumer Fora although specific plea to this effect taken by bank -Order of National Commission affirming orders of State Commission and District Forum, set aside - Complaint dismissed as time barred.
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 24 A Limitation - Filing of Complaint - Provision 4 peremptory in nature, requires Consumer Forum to see before admitting complaint, that it has been filed within two years from date of accrual of cause of action - Delay can be accrual of cause of action - Delay can be condoned if sufficient cause of delay shown- It is duty of Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it - Complaint barred by time, if decided on merits, Forum would be committing illegality - Aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
(2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 768 KANDIMALLA RAGHAVAIAS AND COMPANY Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND ANOTHER esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fuEu fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS %& A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986
-S.24-A--Limitation--Dismissal of complaint on the ground of limitation alone--Mandatory duty of consumer fora regarding--Express duty of consumer fora to dismiss complaints which are barred by limitation and where no sufficient cause has been shown, re-emphasised B. Limitation--Cause of action -Meaning and import, discussed--Held, it has wide import, different meanings in different contexts--Words and Phrases--
"Cause of action"
C. Consumer Protection Act, 1986--S.24-A Limitation--Cause of action/starting date--Complaint whether barred by limitation -fire in complainant's godown on 22-3-1988/23-3-1988 damaging insured tobacco stocks--Complaint filed on 24-10-1997 i.e. after more than nine years and that too without any application for condonation of delay (limitation being two years) -Effect--Held, the cause of action began on 23-3-1988, when fire in the godown took place damaging the insured crops--The complaint was manifestly barred by limitation and the National Commission was justified in dismissing it on this short 5 ground-Limitation for the purpose of S. 24-A began to run from 23-3-198 D. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -S.24-A-- Limitation--Extension of limitation -Permissibility-- Plea of non--issue of insurance claims form and non- processing of claim--Maintainability--Complainant for the first time asking for claim forms on 6-11-1992 for cause of action which arose on 23-3-1988--On facts, held, extension of limitation is not permissible on the said plea which ought to have been filed within two years from the cause of action i.e. from 23-3-1988 (when fire damaged the insured goods) izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ifjokn ,d fnu nsjh ls is'k fd;k gS rFkk /kkjk 5 fe;kn vf/kfu;e dk izkFkZuk&i= Hkh ugha fd;k gSA ,slh lwjr esa fo)ku ftyk eap us tks ifjokn [kkfjt fd;k gS] mlessa fdlh izdkj dh =qfV ugha gSA vr% vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA ¼ ehuk esgrk ½ ¼ dey dqekj ckxMh ½ lnL; lnL; ¼U;kf;d½ @ikBd@ 6