{"id":271341,"date":"2022-08-06T16:00:05","date_gmt":"2022-08-06T10:30:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=271341"},"modified":"2025-05-19T14:34:44","modified_gmt":"2025-05-19T09:04:44","slug":"ncdrc-points-of-law-regarding-limitation-and-consumer-should-not-be-raised-in-revision-just-for-the-sake-of-prolonging-a-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/06\/ncdrc-points-of-law-regarding-limitation-and-consumer-should-not-be-raised-in-revision-just-for-the-sake-of-prolonging-a-case\/","title":{"rendered":"NCDRC| Points of law regarding ‘limitation’ and ‘consumer’ should not be raised in revision just for the sake of prolonging a case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)<\/span>: While deciding the instant revision petition under Section 21(b)<\/a> of Consumer Protection Act, 1986<\/a>, the Bench of Dinesh Singh (Presiding Member) and Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J., (Member) observed that points of law regarding “limitation<\/i>” and “consumer<\/i>” have to be applied on the facts of the case, and the facts can only be determined by leading evidence before the forum of first instance (in rare cases by filing additional evidence before the forum of appellate jurisdiction) and should not be raised in revision just for the sake of prolonging the lis.<\/i><\/p>\n

Facts and Legal Trajectory of the Case<\/span>: The complainant (respondent in the instant petition) insured his truck with the insurance company for an assured sum of Rs 9,60,000 for the period from 04-10-2006 to 03-10-2007<\/span>. During the subsistence of the policy, the truck met with an accident on 19-10-2006.<\/span> The complainant claimed loss of Rs 6,25,020. The surveyor appointed by the insurance company assessed the loss at Rs 2,30,000 which was intimated to the complainant via a letter dated 28-04-2010<\/span>. The letter stated that the insurance company will settle the claim at Rs 1,04,316 and sent therewith pre-receipted vouchers for discharge in full. Aggrieved with the quantum of the settlement, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission on 08-06-2010<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Upon perusal, the District Commission assessed the loss at Rs. 5,27,770 and ordered the insurance company to pay the said sum to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 20,000. The insurance company appealed to the State Commission which made its own independent appraisal of the case and assessed the loss at Rs. 4,50,000. It ordered the insurance company to pay the said sum to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 20,000\/- as ordered by the District Commission within two months of receipt of its Order, failing which it would carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum till payment.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved with the decision, the insurance company then approached the NCDRC.<\/p>\n

Contentions<\/span>: Counsels for the insurance company argued that the surveyor's report should not have been overruled by the State Commission. They also contended that the case was barred by limitation since the accident occurred on 19-10-2006 and the complaint was filed on 08-06-2010 which was beyond the two-year period stipulated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The counsel further contended that the vehicle was purchased under a hire-purchase agreement which shows that the same was being used for commercial activities and therefore the complainant was not a ‘consumer<\/i>' under Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.<\/p>\n

Per contra<\/i>, the counsels for the complainant argued that the question of limitation was not raised by the insurance company either at the forum of original jurisdiction (District Commission) or at the forum of appellate jurisdiction (State Commission).<\/p>\n

Observations<\/span>: Perusing the trajectory of the dispute, the Bench made the following observations-<\/p>\n