Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR
E.I.C.M. Exports Ltd.
Versus
South Indian Corpn. (Agencies) Ltd.& Another
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).4290 OF 2003
Decided On : 21-07-2009
(b) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24(2) – Complaint can be filed even after limitation period and will be maintainable if sufficient cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Forum. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant is an export house. It had booked certain goods through respondent No.1 for carriage through respondent No.2 to New York, U.S.A. According to the appellant, the goods were expected to reach in the second week or early third week of February, 1995. It is alleged that the goods were never delivered to the consignee in New York, although the goods had allegedly reached New York and were kept in the Customs Bonded Ware House in New York which demanded US Dollars 5000 as demurrage.
Since the shipment was delayed and consequently the foreign buyer refused to accept the consignment, the appellant filed a complaint before the National Commission seeking a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.39,81,351/- along with interest thereon @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization due to the negligence on the part of the respondents.
The National Commission, by its impugned order, has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant as barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result:
Appeal allowed.
Judgment :
1. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short National Commission) dated 06th February, 2003 passed in Original Petition No. 285 of 1997.
2. The facts of the case are:
The Appellant is an export house. It had booked certain goods through respondent No.1 for carriage through respondent No.2 to New York, U.S.A. According to the appellant, the goods were expected to reach in the second week or early third week of February, 1995. It is alleged that the goods were never delivered to the consignee in New York, although the goods had allegedly reached New York. According to the appellant, the goods were kept in the Customs Bonded Ware House in New York which demanded US Dollars 5000 as demurrage.
3. Since the shipment was delayed and consequently the foreign buyer refused to accept the consignment, the appellant filed a complaint before the National Commission seeking a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.39,81,351/- along with interest thereon @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization due to the negligence on the part of the respondents.
4. The National Commission, by its impugned order, has dismissed the complaint filed
by the appellant as barred by limitation, applying Article III Clause 6 of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 in which limitation of one year has been provided for filing a complaint.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the National Commission has erred in dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation, applying the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 in which limitation of one year has been provided. He further contended that this Act does not apply at all to the facts of the present case and instead Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 will apply.
7. Article III, clause 6 of the Schedule of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 provides:
"....In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. This period may, however, be extended if the parties so agree after the cause of action has arisen.
Provided that a suit may be brought after the expiry of the period of one year referred to in this sub-paragraph within a further period of not more than three months as allowed by the court."
8. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the aforesaid provision will be applicable in the cases where a suit is filed. In the present case, the appellant did not file any suit but filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum.
9. The word "suit" has a technical meaning which denotes proceedings instituted under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. All legal proceedings in the country are not suits. There are petitions/complaints/applications before various Tribunals or authorities but they are not suits as per Section 9 of the CPC. In our opinion, a complaint before Consumer Forum is not a suit, and hence, the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 is not applicable to the facts of the present case and the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 will only be applicable.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that assuming that the Consumer Protection Act will be applicable to the facts of the case, even then the complaint is barred by limitation.
11. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under:
"Section 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 satisfi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
