(Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) The complainant by Adv.Rita Nadar present. Opponents and their counsel absent. Costs imposed on previous dates on the opponent are not paid. Under the circumstances, we heard learned counsel for the complainant for admission.
(2) In the instant case, deficiency in service is alleged against the opponent, Saudi Arabian Airlines (Cargo). Since it failed to make goods of the loss sustained due to the damage caused to the cargo which was air lifted by the opponent to Istambul, in the fire occurred on 24/05/2006. The correspondence between the parties relating to the claim of above damages did not bear any friuts and so the complainant issued notice on 25/03/2009, which was refused to be accepted. On the basis of notice issued, it is alleged by the complainant that the limitation starts from the notice dated 25/03/2009. We are afraid, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC), the cause of action arose on the date of event i.e. the fire i.e. on 24/05/2006. Issue of notice cannot be a cause of action. Under the circumstances, the consumer complaint filed belatedly on 08/05/2010 and that to without any application for conodonation of delay cannot be entertained. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) Complaint is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly as barred by limitation.
(2) No order as to costs.
(3) Cost imposed for adjournment on the opponent be recovered by taking suitable steps by the Registrar (Legal) of this Commission.
(4) Copy of the order be supplied to the Registrar (Legal) of this Commission.
Pronounced on 27th June, 2011.
