HAS THE APEX COURT REMOVED THE LIMITATION BAR IN
CONSUMER MATTERS
(Law on limitation)
The Supreme court Bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and PC Pant
was hearing two appeals filed by National Insurance Company against judgment
and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby
it ordered the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 21 lakh to Hindustan
Glass.It is contended on behalf of Insurance Company that in terms of Section
24-A of the Act, the claim made by the insured was barred by limitation since
the complaint was filed with the National Commission on 13th August, 1996 while
the loss or damage had occurred on 6th August, 1992.Hence the National Commission could not have
admitted the complaint since it was filed beyond the stipulated period of two
years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.
But the bench rejected the contention and upheld
the order of NCDRC.. In a significant judgment Supreme Court on Friday held that
provision of limitation in the Consumer Protection Act cannot be strictly
construed to disadvantage a consumer
Supreme court held
that in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the courts to take
a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally since it is the
consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of services or
goods
“A beneficent legislation in the form of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted by Parliament. The
provision of limitation in the Act cannot be strictly construed to
disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself
is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer’s
claim”,
As per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.1986 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.
But a complaint may be entertained after the period specified above,
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 limitation.
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
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.
This is what Supreme Court
has so far viewed in various cases
Anshul Aggarwal v. New
Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), 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 R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) =I
(2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed:
“We hold that in
each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the
special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic
test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner
has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”
In Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR1962 Supreme
Court 361,
It has been
observed;
“It is, however,
necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party
is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of
right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction
vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved
nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be
dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the
Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the
delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration
of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or
its bonafides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the inquiry while
exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would
naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”
In Union of India and Another v. British India Corporation Ltd.
and Others, (2003) 9 SCC 50, while dealing with an
aspect of limitation for an application for refund prescribed in Business
Profits Tax Act, 1947, this Court held that the question of limitation was a
mandate to the forum irrespective of the fact whether it was raised or not, the
forum must consider and apply it.
In Haryana Urban Development Authority v. B.K. Sood, Act, 1986
(2006) 1 SCC 164, this Court while dealing
with the same provision viz., Section 24A of the held:
Section 24-A of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to as the Act hereafter) expressly
casts a duty on the Commission admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint
unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or
the National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had
sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years
from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.
In a case of Gannmani Anasuya and Others v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary
and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 296, 7
"this Court highlighted with reference to Section 3 of the
Limitation Act that” it is for the court to determine the question as to
whether the suit is barred by limitation or not irrespective of the fact that
as to whether such a plea has been raised by the parties; such a jurisdictional
fact need not be even pleaded.”
But now
the same Supreme Court in its order in April 2017 does not talk of the necessity
of condoning the delay by the forum or commission whatever the case may be. It
simply says rule cannot be strictly followed.
Does this mean every
delayed complaint is necessarily to be admitted?
Certainly not.
Supreme court has only
said –rule cannot be strictly followed to the disadvantage of consumer when
opposite party has already deprived the consumer by approving claim and delayed
it .It clearly means court has to see the circumstances of the case and decide
not to the disadvantage of consumer, procedure of condonation of delay is
implied and order is in the true spirit of the provisions of the act and very
much in tune to the earlier judgments of the apex court.
Become a Member of the new revolution "Consumer Awakening" and instantly expand your knowledge with the Important Landmark Judgements, Laws Laid down by the Supreme Court for Consumer Rights, Get access to hundreds of Featured Articles in 2 different Languages; English and Hindi - a valuable professional resource to draw upon, and a powerful, collective voice to advocate for your protection of rights as a consumer nationwide.
Thank you for your interest in becoming a "Consumer Awakening" Member!
You will find information on Customer Rights, what we're doing and how to become a member. If you are looking forward to become a member of our portal and gain access to Hundreds of Featured Articles which will clearly give you an insight of yoru rights as a Consumer, then Read Further. more detail on our technologies and technology process,