Pendency Of Criminal Complaint Can't Justify Delay In Filing Consumer Complaint: NCDRC
Pranav B Prem
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi Bench comprising Mr. Binoy Kumar (Presiding Member) and Justice Saroj Yadav (Member), held that the mere filing or pendency of a criminal complaint cannot justify the delay in approaching consumer forums. The Commission observed that such a justification, if accepted, would defeat the very object of prescribing a limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Factual Background
The complainant, Mr. Pushpendu Dutta Chowdhury, alleged that while he was traveling on an Eastern Railways train, he was robbed of several valuable ornaments—namely, a gold chain worth ₹9,145, a necklace valued at ₹37,789, another gold chain worth ₹47,018, a ring valued at ₹9,063, and a hallmark chain worth ₹34,900. The robbery reportedly took place in front of the Government Railway Police (GRP) and Railway Protection Force (RPF) at Howrah Station. He further claimed that he suffered serious injuries during the incident and underwent medical examination at a government facility. A police report was registered with the Howrah GRP on the same day.
Based on these facts, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Kolkata, alleging deficiency of service on the part of Eastern Railways. The District Commission ruled in his favour and awarded a compensation of ₹1,50,000. On appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, modified the order by removing the penal damages but granted simple interest at 9% per annum on the compensation.
Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the lower forums, Eastern Railways preferred a revision petition before the NCDRC, contending that the complaint was barred by limitation and was not maintainable before the consumer forum.
Appellant's Contentions
Eastern Railways argued that the consumer complaint was filed well beyond the statutory limitation of two years as prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It contended that the delay was substantial and unjustified, and both the District and State Commissions had erred in failing to address this issue, even though it had been raised in the written statement.
It further submitted that the medico-legal certificate indicated that the complainant had fallen while attempting to board the train, with no mention of robbery or theft in the initial medical records. Thus, the complainant’s version was not credible. Moreover, it argued that the alleged incident involved a cognizable offence and fell outside the jurisdiction of consumer fora, which cannot adjudicate criminal offences.
Complainant’s Stand
The complainant contended that the delay in filing the consumer complaint was due to his bona fide efforts to recover the stolen items through criminal proceedings. He stated that he had filed a complaint with the GRP and was cooperating with the police investigation. Only after realising that the stolen items would not be recovered did he decide to approach the consumer forum. He argued that this sequence of events constituted sufficient cause for the delay in filing the complaint.
NCDRC's Observations and Ruling
The NCDRC noted that the date of the incident was 15.06.2006, whereas the consumer complaint was filed only on 06.07.2009, after a delay of more than three years. The Commission observed that although the petitioner had specifically taken the plea of limitation, the District Commission failed to deal with the same. The State Commission also overlooked the issue, instead proceeding on merits without examining whether the complaint was barred by limitation.
The Commission emphasized that Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly provides that a complaint shall not be admitted unless it is filed within two years from the date of cause of action, except where sufficient cause is shown for the delay. The complainant had not filed any application seeking condonation of delay, nor had he given any explanation for the delayed filing before the District Commission.
Referring to its previous judgments, the NCDRC reiterated that pendency of a criminal case is not a valid ground to condone delay in filing a consumer complaint. The bench clarified that waiting for the outcome of criminal proceedings, or awaiting the recovery of stolen property through police investigation, does not amount to “sufficient cause” under Section 24A. Further, the Commission held that allowing such a ground would frustrate the very purpose of the limitation clause under consumer law, which is meant to ensure timely adjudication of grievances.
In view of these findings, the NCDRC allowed the revision petition, set aside the orders of the State and District Commissions, and dismissed the consumer complaint as barred by limitation.
Appearance
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate
Cause Title: G.M., Eastern Railways V. Puspendu Dutta Chowdhury
Case No: Revision Petition No. NC/RP/1573/2019
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Binoy Kumar [Presiding Member], Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Saroj Yadav [Member]
[Read/Download order]
