NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs M.P.TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED

THE complainants have filed this appeal against the order dated 24th June, 1997 passed in Case No. 29/ Forum /95 by the District Consumer Disptues Redressal Forum, Satna (for short the ''District Forum''), whereby the complaint of the complainant filed on 27.3.1995 has been dismissed as barred by time in view of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act'') which lays down that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

IN the present case, the cause of action arose on 19.9.1992 when the appellant No. 1 as insurer of the goods under the terms of the policy paid the amount to the owner of the goods that is the appellant No. 2, as the insured goods entrusted on 25.3.1992 for their transportation and delivery at Satna to the consignee. The District Forum held that the complaint filed on 27.3.1995 is not presented within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose on 26.3.1992 when the goods were not delivered at Satna, therefore, the complaint was barred by time. Section 24-A of the Act was inserted with effect from 18.6.1993 by Amendment Act of 1993. Prior to that no period of limitation was prescribed. The general law of Limitation Act of 1963 was applicable and, therefore, the complaint used to be filed for counting the limitation of three years from the date of which right to sue accrues under Article 113 of the Limitation Act of 1963. See, the decision of National Commission in case of Janaki Rani v. Punjab National Bank, III (1996) CPJ 142 (NC), and Delhi Development Authority v. Govinda Rao & Ors., I (1994) CPJ 103 (NC).

In view of the fact that the cause of action arose when Section 24-A was not on the statute, the period of limitation will be governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act of 1963 as Section 24-A was not retrospective in operation so as to destroy the vested right which has accrued to a party. The Supreme Court in case of M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Shanti Misra, AIR 1976 SC 237, has observed that even though by and large the law of limitation has been held to be a procedural law, there are exceptions to this principle. Generally the law of limitation which is in vogue on the date of the commencement of the action governs it. But there are certain exceptions to this principle. The new law of limitation providing a longer period cannot revive a dead remedy. Nor can it suddenly extinguish vested right of action by providing for a shorter period of limitation.

THIS Commission in Sharadchandra Raorekar & Ors. v. Govindrao & Ors., II (1998) CPJ 230, following the decision of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case of Syndicate Bank v. Rajpaul Bansal, I (1997) CPJ 580, wherein the decision of the Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Shanti Misra (supra), was followed held that as cause of action arose prior to insertion of Section 24-A cannot be said to be barred by time which prescribed the shorter period of limitation as the right to file complaint accrued on the date of arising out of the cause of action which was a vested right. In view of the above, the order of the District Forum is set aside. The case is sent back to the District Forum for deciding the complaint afresh after notice to the opposite party in accordance with law within 90 days from the date of appearance of the parties. Notice to the appellants shall not be issued as they have been noticed here through their Counsel to appear on 30.9.1999. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum alongwith the record of the case. Appeal allowed.