AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ALONG with present Appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 208 days has been filed.
BRIEF facts are that Appellant/Complainant ''s husband died in a railway accident on 30.6.2004. Thereafter, on 9.9.2004 she filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, which granted her a sum of Rs.4 lacs(Rupees Four Lacs only) as compensation, vide order dated 21.7.2010. Having received the said amount from the Railway, appellant filed a Consumer Complaint before State Consumer Disputes Redresdssal Commission, Mumbai(for short, ''State Commission '') on 16.10.2012. Alongwith it, an application seeking condonation of delay of six years three months and sixteen days in filing of the complaint was filed. State Commission, vide its impugned order dated 21.11.2012, dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, it held that the complainant does not survive for consideration.
NOW appellant has come before this Commission by way of present appeal.
WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. State Commission, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay observed; ''''In a delay condonation application, it is stated that applicant/ complainant lady is unaware of the law and she was not educated and it was very difficult for her to understand and get knowledge to go through all the process work every time. The applicant/complainant had to rush here and there from one department to another to get all the documents to complete the legal process and then it is submitted that balance of convenience lies in her favour. It is further stated that she had suffered an accident on 11.06.2011 and was admitted in the hospital and has undergone an operation on 02.07.2011 and therefore, delay may please be condoned. In fact illness or hospitalization is of the year 2011.The accident of her husband had taken place in 2004 and immediately claim was lodged with the Railway Claims Tribunal. Similarly, the applicant/complainant could have filed present claim against the Insurance Company. However, said claim was not filed. There are no valid reasons and sufficient cause for not filing the claim with the Consumer Fora. This is an afterthought application filed after having received Rs.4 '' Lakhs as compensation from the Railway Claims Tribunal. Though we have sympathy with the family of the deceased as they have lost their family member in the accident, yet it is not a case of ignorance of law. They were very well aware of the fact that compensation can be claimed and accordingly they have claimed and have recovered also. This is a belated attempt on the part of the applicant/complainant to recover another compensation without any valid reason. Therefore, delay condonation application stands rejected.
Misc. Application No. 370/2012 for condonation of delay stands rejected. Consequently, complaint No.294/2012 does not survive for consideration ''''.
IT is well settled principle of law that any relief can be claimed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ''Act ''),within two years from the date on which the cause of action accrues.
SECTION 24 -A of the Act deals with this situation which is reproduced 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 satisfies 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 Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay ''''.
The above provision is clearly peremptory in nature requiring the Consumer Fora to see at the time of entertaining the complaint, whether it has been filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of cause of action.
HON ''ble Apex Court in case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP) took view of the observations made in case State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP)=JT 2009 (4) SC 191, 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 provision, has held: ''''8. 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 ''''.
ADMITTEDLY , appellant had earlier filed the claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal and after getting a sum of Rs.4 lacs, she filed the consumer complaint after a period of six years. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant was not aware of her legal rights. Moreover, as per appellant ''s own case she remained confined to bed only for a period for six months from June,2011. Even if we exclude this period of six months, there is no explanation for long delay of more than five and half years, in filing of the complaint before the State Commission. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is very well reasoned and leaves no scope for any interference by this Commission.
LASTLY , before this Commission also there is delay of 208 days in filing this First Appeal. The only plea taken by appellant in the application seeking condonation of delay is, that she is poor lady and due to insufficient funds she had to arrange for the money and as such delay took place.
APPELLANT has nowhere stated as to how she has arranged the funds now and what was the source of those funds. Hon ''ble Supreme Court in ''''Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) '''' has laid down that; ''''It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras. ''''.
IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Moreover, no sufficient cause whatsoever has been shown to us to condone the long delay of 208 days in filing the present appeal.
PRESENT appeal is nothing but gross abuse of the process of law, as appellant after having received the claim amount of Rs.4 lacs from the Railway Claims Tribunal has sought further compensation. Accordingly, present appeal being without any legal basis at all, is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/ -(Rupees Five Thousand only). Appellant is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of ''Consumer Legal Aid Account '' of this Commission within four weeks.
IN case, appellant fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then she shall be liable to pay the interest @9% p.a. till its realization.
LIST on 07.03.2014 for compliance.