Geetha Sivadas vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

THERE is a delay of 21 days in filing this revision petition for which the petitioner has submitted an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing this revision petition is condoned.

THE broad facts of this case may be stated like this. The petitioner who was the original complainant availed an insurance policy of the respondent Co. for the fabric materials of her textile shop "Charulatha Textiles" for an amount of Rs.7 lakhs during the period from 25.2.2003 to 24.2.2004. On 12.5.2003 at about 1.00 am, an incident of theft occurred in the shop in which according to the complainant, the thieves took away Rs.38,000/- in cash and textile articles worth Rs.5,78,878/-. A case was registered with the police and the charge sheet was filed wherein it was stated that the complainant sustained loss of Rs.2 lakhs and cash loss of Rs.38,000/-. The OP Insurance Co. was informed of the burglary immediately and a surveyor was deputed by the Insurance Co. to assess the loss. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.49,026/- in respect of which the Insurance Co. offered an amount of Rs.41,734/- subject to reduction as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Not satisfied with this offer, the complainant/petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum vide CC No.96 of 2009 on the ground that the Insurance Co. was liable to make good the entire loss sustained by the complainant/petitioner. It was prayed that the OP Insurance Co. be directed to pay compensation as well with interest on the actual loss that had happened along with other reliefs. The District Forum vide its order dated 30.6.2011 allowed the complaint by directing OP Insurance Co./respondent herein to pay an amount of Rs.2,38,000/- with 9% interest from the date of submitting the claim in addition to compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the OPs/respondents filed an appeal against the same before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (''State Commission'' for short). It was submitted by the OP Insurance Co. before the State Commission that the complaint was barred by limitation and hence the same ought to have been dismissed in limine without going into the merits. It was also submitted by the Insurance Co. that based on the surveyor''s report the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.41,734/- which was duly sent to the petitioner for vouching on 12.10.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner accepted this amount without any objection although the fact of receiving this amount was not shown in the complaint by the petitioner. Taking note of these facts, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent Co. and set aside the order of the District Forum vide its order dated 17.7.2012. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

WE have heard Mr. Koshy Jacob, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record. As per the mandatory requirement of section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint can be filed within two years from the date of arising of the cause of action. The State Commission observed that the complaint in question was filed after a lapse of 6 years and the same was barred by limitation. It was also observed that the complainant could not overcome the limitation endlessly by extending it on the ground of reinvestigation before the police and waiting to receive the investigation report. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC)=II (2009) SLT 793, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and accepted the appeal.

WE agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Nothing has been placed before us by the petitioner which would persuade us to take a different view. The District Forum obviously exceeded the limit and entertained the complaint without taking into consideration the limitation aspect and hence its order could not have been sustained by the State Commission. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.