NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President
Chetanbhai Pravinchandra Shah – Appellant
versus
Hotel Shyam Lodge and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.30 of 2022
(Against the Order dated 21/09/2021 in Complaint No.45/2015 of the State Commission Telangana)
Decided on 28.4.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.19, 24A - [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.51] – Appeal – Survives – Insurance – Practice and Procedure – Limitation and Cause of Action - Barred by Limitation - In the present case, the Complainant met with an accident while using the lift of the Hotel on 12.03.2012 and the legal notice was sent by him to the Hotel claiming compensation only on 10.03.2013 i.e. one year after the date of lift incident. The Legal Notice was replied by the Hotel on 14.03.2013 suggesting him to pursue his case with the Insurers as they were covered under the Insurance Policy for any of their omission - In the present case, the cause of action has occurred in favour of the Complainant only on 12.03.2012 when the lift incident has taken place, however, the Complaint was filed before the State Commission by the Complainant only on 09.03.2015 i.e. beyond the limitation period of two years. As such, the Complaint was barred by limitation – Also, no application seeking condonation of delay of one year along with Complaint has been filed by the Complainant explaining and justifying the reasons for the delay – On facts, Complaint filed by the Complainant on 09.03.2015 was hopelessly time barred – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 10 to 18].
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
The present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant in the Complaint before the State Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Complainant”) under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 21.09.2021, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter to be referred to as “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2015. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission while holding the Opposite Party No.2 & 3, the Insurers (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Insurers”) liable to compensate the Complainant for the lift accident, has dismissed the Complaint filed by the Complainant/Appellant herein as barred by limitation.
2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the Complaint are that the Complainant was working as Marketing Supervisor and for business purposes he used to visit different towns and cities. During his business visits to Secunderabad he used to stay at Hotel Shyam Lodge, Opposite Party No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the Hotel”). On 11.03.2012, he came to Secunderabad and stayed at the Hotel. On the following day i.e. on 12.03.2012 at about 6 P.M. he met with an accident during the course of his stay at the Hotel while attempting to use the Lift Service provided at the Hotel. Immediately, he was admitted in Sunshine Hospital, Paradise Circle, Secunderabad for treatment and was discharged on 16.03.2012 after amputation of his right leg above knee. Thereafter, he was taken to his home town in Ahmedabad where he took treatment and regular dressing at Hari Krupa Hospital-Ahmedabad from 17.03.2012 onwards for about 3 months for post amputation medical care. The accident resulted in permanent partial disablement which affected his earning capacity. Complainant spent huge amount on his treatment but in vain. Hence, Complainant served a Legal Notice dated 10.03.2013 upon the Hotel holding them negligent in service and claiming a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty Lakh only). In reply to the said Legal Notice, the Hotel suggested the Complainant to approach the Opposite Party No.2 and 3, the Insurers as they were covered by Public Liability Insurance Policy obtained from them. They also forwarded a photo copy of the policy to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, he had paid the rent to the Hotel for using the facilities provided by them including lift and as such they were liable to compensate him. It was averred that the Hotel was deficient in service as they had not made proper and safe arrangements of the lift facility at their premises for the convenience of their customers and they were equally liable to compensate him adequately for the permanent partial disability. As the Opposite Parties refused to compensate the Complainant for permanent partial disability, he, left with no other option, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties, filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission seeking following relief:—
(i) Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000- towards medical expenses for amputation and post medical treatment and Rs.2,50,000/- towards artificial limb in total Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @12% from the date of loss till the date of payment;
(ii) Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the unbearable pain, shock, suffering and loss of earning capacity as a result of the accident, permanent partial disablement etc.
(iii) Costs of Rs.2,50,000/- and grant other relief as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the Complaint was contested by the Hotel stating that; the accident occurred as a result of the Complainant’s own negligence and such a case ought to have been filed in a Civil Court; Complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as it has been filed after three years from the date of accident in question;
R.D. Hatangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd.
State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries
Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.
(1) Sufficient Cause - Thus, it is appropriate to observe that it feels satisfied that the circumstances of the case are such that the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay for the reason....
A consumer complaint must be filed within two years of the cause of action, specifically the date of claim repudiation; prolonged correspondence does not extend this period, and any delay requires a ....
No relief can be given on a time-barred complaint.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.