1.  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 Raghavaiah Vs. National Insurance Co. wherein on the similar facts the apex court has denied the relief. The apex court has held as under:

“It is, therefore, clear from the afore noted correspondence between the appellant and the Insurance company that cause of action in respect of the special insurance policy arose on 22^nd/23^rd March, 1988, when fire in the godown took place damaging the tobacco stocks hypothecated with the Bank in whose account the policy had been taken by the appellant. Thus, the limitation for the purpose of section 24 A of the Act began to run from 23^rd March 1988 and therefore, the complaint before the Commission against the insurance company for deficiency in service whether for non issue of claim forms or for not processing the claim under the policy ought to have been filed within two years thereof........

    By no stretch of imagination it can be said that insurance company's reply dated 21^st March 1996 to the legal notice dated 4^th January 1996 declining to issue the forms for preferring a claim after a lapse of more than four years of the date of fire resulted in extending the period of limitation for the purpose of section 24A of the Act, We have no hesitation in holding that the complaint filed on 24^th  October 1997 and that too without an application for condonation of delay was manifestly barred by limitation and the Commission was justified in dismissing it on that short ground."

 In para no. 14 of the original complaint it has been admitted that the accident has taken place on 20.9.2003 meaning thereby that the cause of action has arisen on that day. Thereafter the mother of the deceased student has preferred a civil suit before the District Judge, Jaipur which was decreed against the present appellant and appeal was also preferred for enhancement of the compensation. The payments were made by the appellant. Thereafter letters and legal notice were served to the respondent but judgment passed by the District Court or the High Court and even the letters and legal notice could not give a fresh cause of action to the appellant and it may also be noted that no application u/s 24 A of the C.P.Act was submitted to extend the period of limitation.

 In view of above, the Forum below has rightly dismissed the claim. There is no merit in this appeal and liable to be dismissed.”

6.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/complainant reiterated averments in the Complaint, Memo of Appeal and the grounds advanced in the Revision Petition. He contended that the cause of action for filing the complaint will arise on the part of the Petitioner when the liability fastened upon him by the learned District Judge vide its order dated 03.01.2008 and not before that. Therefore, filing of the complaint before the District Commission on 30.10.2009 was well within the limitation period of two years as prescribed in the Act. He sought to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order. He relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI v. BS Agricultural Industries (2009) 5 SCC 121. He further argued that the State Commission failed to appreciate the ratio of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanimalla Raghaviah V National Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein it was held that mere sending of letters and notices would not give rise to a fresh cause of action or extend the period of limitation. However, in the present case Petitioner sought no such extension on the basis of letters sent to the Respondent. It was after the liability when being fastened upon the petitioner by the Hon’ble High Court. 

7.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents argued in favour of concurrent findings of both the Fora and contended that the incident took place on 20.09.2003 in which the deceased Rajendra Singh suffered fatal injury, hence the date of accrual of cause of action has to be considered as 20.09.2003 and in absence of any application for Condonation of delay, the complaint has been rightly dismissed being time barred.  He sought to dismiss the present Revision Petition with costs.

8.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the both the learned fora, and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.

9.      The main question arises in the present case is when the cause of action arose on 20.09.2003 i.e. the date of incident took place or 03.01.2008 i.e. the date of liability fastened upon the Petitioner by the learned District Judge. It is admitted that on 20.09.2003 Rajendra Singh died and on 03.01.2008 compensation was ordered by the District Judge. The suit against the Insurer was dismissed, and no liberty was granted for indemnification against the Respondents. The District Forum and State Commission dismissed the complaint as time-barred, filed six years after the incident. The cause of action in the present case, under these circumstances, arose on 20.09.2003.

10.    It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. From the facts stated, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order of the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Act. I would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

11.    Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as regards revisional Jurisdiction of NCDRC:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

12.    Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, 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. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

13.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed.

14.    Considering the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

15.    All pending Applications, if any, also are disposed of accordingly.