State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Baba Major Singh vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 29 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.649 of 2004
Date of institution: 09.06.2004
Date of decision : 29.01.2010
Baba Major Singh of Bhanga Building no. 2454/V-17, Dera Shaheed Baba Tara
Singh now Dera Saheed Baba Bhagail Singh, Kot Baba Deep Singh, Near Basic
Siksha Kendra, Gali No.7, Amritsar through General Attorney - Jaimal Singh son
of Gurmej Singh.
.....Appellant
Versus
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Senior Branch Manager, Kanedy
Avenue, Branch Office No.III, Court Road, Amritsar.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 05.05.2004
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : None
For the respondent : Sh.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for
Ms.V.A.Talwar, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
Baba Major Singh appellant got insured his building for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs on 30.9.1998 and his stocks/contents to the tune of Rs.13,15,000/-. The premium was paid. The insurance policy was valid for one year upto 29.9.1999 midnight.
2. It was further pleaded that on 7.10.1998, the police arrested the appellant in a false criminal case on the instigation of the Members of the Shiromany Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (in short "SGPC") and the Additional Secretary Raghbir Singh but the appellant remained in Jail from 7.10.1998 to 17.10.1998. During his absence, the Members of the SGPC and the employees of the other Task Force of the Committee entered the building of First Appeal No.649 of 2004 2 the appellant and caused damage to the building. They also removed the contents/stocks lying stocked in the building in the midnight intervening of 12/13.10.1998.
3. It was further pleaded that after the appellant was released from the police custody, he reported the matter to the respondents on 21.10.1998. He also moved the application before the SSP and other legal authorities. The appellant also requested the respondents to appoint the Surveyor. He also went to the respondents personally in their office and provided the relevant documents to them. The respondents failed to appoint the Surveyor. Then a reminder dated 16.01.2001 was sent to the respondents for settlement of the insurance claim. It was duly replied by the respondents on 18.01.2001.
4. It was further pleaded that in spite of that, the appellant went to the office of the respondents and also offered to provide all the necessary documents/papers required for settlement of the insurance claim but to no effect. After waiting for a long time, the appellant sent them in writing on 01.07.2003. The respondents vide letter dated 14.7.2003 informed the appellant that no insurance claim was pending with them. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "the District Forum") for insurance claim. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
5. The respondents filed the written statement. It was denied if any burglary had taken place or if the appellant was entitled to any insurance claim. It was also pleaded that the complaint was hopelessly time barred. The silence on the part of the appellant for the period from 1998 to 2003 revealed that no cause of action had accrued to him. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. The appellant filed his affidavit Ex.C1. He also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of R.K.Dhupper as Ex.R1. The respondents also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R5. First Appeal No.649 of 2004 3
7. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 05.05.2004 by holding that the complaint was barred by limitation.
8. Hence, this appeal.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
10. In the present case, even as per the version of the appellant himself, the occurrence had taken place in the night intervening of 12/13.10.1998. Therefore, the cause of action had arisen to the appellant on that date while the complaint was filed by the appellant in the learned District Forum on 29.7.2003 i.e. after about 4 to 5 years.
11. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under :
-
"24-A. Limitation Period - (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfied the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State First Appeal No.649 of 2004 4 Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
12. In the judgment reported as "Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP)"
, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to define the 'Cause of action' as under : -
"13. 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 & ors. (1970) 1 SCC 186). 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."
13. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment reported as "State Bank of India v. B.S.Agricultural Industries (I), 2009 CTJ 481 (Supreme Court) (CP)" that the limitation has to be counted keeping in view the provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, according to which, a complaint has to be filed within a period of 2 years from the date when the cause of action arises. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under : -
First Appeal No.649 of 2004 5
"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."
14. Since the complaint was filed by the appellant after a period of 5 years, therefore, this complaint was barred by limitation.
15. Otherwise also, it is not a case of burglary. The appellant has alleged that he was sent to jail on 07.10.1998 and he remained in Jail upto 17.10.1998. The Members of the SGPC and the other task force employees had entered his First Appeal No.649 of 2004 6 house on the night intervening of 12/13.10.1998. Even in his application dated 21.10.1998 addressed to the respondents, the appellant himself has pleaded that some persons had entered his house and taken away the goods. This, therefore, does not prove the forcibly entry in the house. Therefore, the burglary is not proved.
16. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2004.
17. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. However, the appellant would be at liberty to resort to any other remedy available to him.
18. The arguments in this case were heard on 21.01.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
January 29, 2010.
Paritosh