Yeturu Biotech Ltd. vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

THIS revision is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 27.09.2013 in FA No. 434/2012 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner as barred by limitation.

BRIEFLY stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner complainant is in the business of manufacture of Biotech products. For that purpose, the complainant procured flexi tubes from M/s Printo Tech Global Limited, Noida - II, U.P. and consigned the said goods to M/s Sarvotham Care Limited 197/1, Qutubullapur, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad through M/s New Bharat Golden Road Carriers. The consignment was insured with the respondent insurance company for a sum of Rs.3,07,197/ -. It is claimed by the complainant that during transit the consignment got damaged. The claim in this regard was submitted which was not settled by the respondent opposite party. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum. The respondent in his written statement besides denying the allegations made in the complaint took the plea that complaint was barred by limitation for the reason that it was filed on 01.11.2011, five years after the date on which the insured consignment was allegedly damaged.

THE District Forum Hyderabad on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the respondent opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,07,197/ - alongwith 9% interest thereon w.e.f. 01.11.2006 till the date of payment besides cost of Rs.2000/ -.

FEELING aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondent insurance company preferred an appeal. The State Commission on consideration of record came to the conclusion that consumer complaint was barred by limitation and dismissed the complaint. Relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced thus: ''''The main contention of the appellants/opposite parties in the case is that the complaint is not filed within the limitation period provided by Sec.24 -A of the C.P.Act and that no prior permission of the Districti Forum has been taken by the complainant seeking condonation of delay for the delayed period as enshrined in the proviso of Sec.24 -A of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint. The District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent/complainant is that he came to know about the rejection of the claim on 01.02.2011, when the IRDA had informed him about the said fact of rejection of the claim. The complaint is filed in 2011 itself and therefore the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of knowledge of rejection of the claim and hence, it is not barred by limitation. As such, the District Forum rightly held that the complaint is filed within two years period of limitation from the date of knowledge of the rejection of the claim and that the complaint is not barred by limitation. It is an undisputed fact that the claim of the respondent/complainant is repudiated vide surveyor report dt.22.10.2006. It is the case of the appellants/opposite parties that a copy of the surveyor ''s report containing repudiation of claim was handed over to the respondent/complainant immediately in the year 2006. The respondent/complainant denied to have received the surveyor ''s report. The appellants/opposite parties has not filed any proof that they have handed over the copy of the surveyor ''s report. However, the respondent/complainant himself got filed the surveyor ''s report and got it marked as Ex.A3 along with his other documents. Ex.A3 does not contain the seal or stamp of IRDA office or signature or sign of the official of IRDA, to conclude that the IRDA officials handed over Ex.A3 to the respondent/complainant in 2011. The respondent/complainant filed Ex.A12 covering letter, enclosing the letter written by IRDA to him on 17.3.2008. As seen from Ex.A12 letter, on the complaint made by the respondent/complainant, the IRDA directed the respondent/complainant on 17.3.2008 to approach the proper Forum for adjudication of his claim, as his claim is repudiated based on the survey report. But, even after receiving the letter dt.17.03.2008 of IRDA, the respondent/complainant choose to remain silent up till 19.11.2011, on which date the respondent/complainant got filed the complaint. From Ex.A12 letter it is evident that the respondent/complainant had knowledge of repudiation even from 17.03.2008 i.e. the date of letter enclosed to Ex.A12 letter. It is therefore obvious that the complaint is not filed by respondent/complainant within two years either from the date of the surveyor ''s report i.e. 22.10.2006 or from the date of the letter enclosed to Ex.A12 i.e. 17.3.2008. The District Forum has not considered Ex.A12 letter. Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act provides for a period of two years within which complaint has to be filed and in the event the complaint is not filed within the prescribed period, Consumer Forum cannot entertain the complaint. If the complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation, the complainant is required to file an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint and if the Consumer Forum satisfied with the cause for the delay in filing the complaint, it would condone the delay and admit the complaint. The cause of action is dealt with in detail by the Supreme Court in Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another reported in 2009 CTJ 951 (SC) . In para 13 of the judgement it has been held as under: ''''The term ''cause of action '' is neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of the Civil Procedure 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 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. ''''

Admittedly the complainant has not filed any application to condone the delay in filing the complaint as provided under proviso to Sec.24 -A of C.P.Act. For the above said facts and circumstances, we hold that the complaint is barred by limitation and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside. '''' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable as the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the petitioner came to know about the repudiation of his claim only from the letter dated 01.02.2011 addressed to him by IRDA alongwith copy of letter dated 16.05.2008 was annexed wherein it was mentioned that the claim of the petitioner has already been repudiated. It is submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the petitioner was neither supplied with the copy of the Surveyor Report recommending no liability on the part of the insurance company nor he was served with the repudiation letter. The State Commission also failed to appreciate that letter dated 16.05.2008 was not received by the petitioner. Learned counsel has thus urged that cause of action to file consumer complaint arose when the petitioner came to know about the repudiation of his claim and if the period of limitation is computed w.e.f. the date of knowledge i.e. 01.02.2011, the complaint was filed well within the prescribed period of limitation of two years provided under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, the Act).

SECTION 21 (b) of the Act provides for the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission which reads as under: 21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission : (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

ON reading of the above, it is clear that revisional powers of the National Commission are very limited and those can be exercised only if there is a jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the order of the fora below. Hon ''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed : ''''Also it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora. ''''

ON perusal of the impugned order, particularly the relevant portion reproduced above, we do not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the finding of the State Commission. The impugned order is well reasoned and based upon the thorough analysis of the facts. The contentions raised by the petitioner before us have been dealt by the State Commission in appropriate manner. Thus, we do not find any reason to take a different view and interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

IN view of the above discussion, revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.