IMPORTANT POINT
National Commission – The powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER

This Revision Petition No.1892 of 2018 challenges the order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘State Commission’) dated 09.04.2018. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed Appeal No. 724 of 2017 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur (‘District Forum’) dated 03.01.2008 wherein the District Forum, dismissed the Complaint filed by the Petitioner as barred by limitation.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the Petitioner/Complainant, are that M/s. Pink Pearl Laser and Amusement Private Limited had obtained a public liability insurance policy from the Respondents, with policy number 2003/140300/48/03/00083, valid from 09.04.2003 to 08.04.2004, and a sum assured of Rs.20 Lakhs. On 20.09.2003, during the policy period, Rajendra Singh, a student of Saraswati Vidya Mandir, died from an electric shock at Pink Pearl Water Park. The mother of Rajendra Singh filed a Civil Suit No. 98/2004 seeking compensation, and the learned District Judge, Jaipur awarded her Rs. 2 Lakhs along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order (03.01.2008) until realization. The suit against the Insurance Company was dismissed, and the mother filed a Civil First Appeal No. 225/2008 before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, which resulted in the High Court awarding interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until payment. Consequently, the Petitioner paid Rs. 2,45,240/- to Smt. Swaroop Kanwar, the mother of Rajendra Singh. The Petitioner claimed that they had informed the insurance company about the incident and demanded reimbursement through multiple letters (dated 02.04.08, 09.06.2008, 23.12.2008, 30.01.2009, and 30.07.2009) but received no response. Aggrieved by the non-response, the Petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.

3. The Respondents, in their Reply filed before the District Forum, had raised preliminary objections, citing the District Judge’s order dated 03.01.2008, which had dismissed the Insurance Company from the suit, stating that they were an unnecessary party. They argued that there is no consumer relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents. The Respondents contended that the complaint is time-barred since the accident occurred on 20.09.2003, and the judgment was passed on 03.01.2008. They further argued that the District Judge had found the Petitioner negligent and careless, failing to follow necessary safety measures. According to the policy terms, the Respondents asserted that they are not liable to pay any compensation, as the accident occurred due to the Petitioner’s negligence. The Respondents prayed for dismissal of the complaint, arguing that the Petitioner is not entitled to any compensation.

4. The District Forum, vide order dated 23.05.2017 dismissed the complaint with the following directions:

“Order

Therefore, the complaint of complainant company filed against respondent insurance company is hereby dismissed as the same is time barred.” (Extracted from translated copy)

5. On Appeal, the State Commission, vide the order dated 09.04.2018 affirmed the District Forum order with reasons as below:

“Heard the counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned order as well as original record of the case. Mr. Arjun Rajpurohit appeared on behalf of the appellant but he is not ready to assist the Commission.

A bare perusal of the impugned order goes to show that admittedly the appellants were insured with the respondents and during the policy period accident took place on 20.9.2003 and one student Rajendra Singh died. Before the Forum below the complaint was filed on 30.10.2009 and the Forum below has rightly held that the complaint is, time barred as the cause of action has arisen on 20.9.2003 and furthermore no application for condonation of delay is filed before the Forum below and respondent has rightly relied upon 2009(5) Supreme Court 377 Kandimalla Raghav