Mohd. Rahim Khan, Complainant No.66 of 2004 before the A.P State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad has filed this appeal against the order of the State Commission. The State Commission has held that this complaint was filed in November, 2004 in relation to cause of action which arose in June, 1997, after lapse of seven years and therefore it is hopelessly barred by limitation. The State Commission therefore, dismissed the complaint. 2. The appeal against the above order has been filed with a delay of 17 days, which has been condoned and matter taken up for consideration. It is seen from the record of the case that this matter has arisen from an incident of 17.7.1997 at JeddahAirport when the appellant/complainant was about to commence his journey to India by a flight of the respondent Airlines. The case of the complainant is that he had checked in for the flight and had obtained his boarding card when he was suddenly taken into custody and put in the police lock up for nine days. During this period, allegedly, he was subjected to lot of physical and mental torture by the police. His passport, boarding pass and the baggage were taken away by the police, who alleged that he was an agent of the drugs and narcotic business, traveling on a fake ticket. 3. According to the complainant, he was later informed that the incident took place because, as per the records of the Saudi authorities, he had pooled his baggage with one Shaik Zyed whose baggage ticket had been wrongly attached to his boarding pass. He was released after the authorities were convinced that this had happened due to the mistake of the Saudi Arabian Airlines Authority. He finally returned to India on 17.1.1998 but never got his lost baggage. In the complaint filed before the State Commission, the complainant sought total compensation of Rs.99 lacs (10. 5 Million US Dollar) on account of the following:- a. Costs incurred for medication in India------------------Rs.5,00,000/- b. Costs incurred for traveling to Switzerland------------Rs.2,00,000/- c. Costs incurred for Medication at Switzerland-------Rs.25,00,000/- d. Costs incurred for traveling to Sweden ---------------Rs.1,50,000/- e. Costs incurred for medication at Sweden-------------Rs.2,00,000/- f. Compensation towards mental agony and personal suffering’s of Complainant and his family members --------------------------------------------Rs.57,50,000/- 4. In response to the above, the case of the opposite party i.e. Saudi Arabian Airlines before the State Commission was that the complainant has been refunded the value of unused ticket in addition to compensation for loss of baggage and therefore, nothing remain to be adjudicated against them. 5. It is seen from the records that before the State Commission that the complainant has taken the stand that this was a case of continuous cause of action, in view of very protracted interaction with the Respondent/OP themselves to find a solution directly. In this behalf, the complainant refers to the correspondence starting with his letter 14.12.1998 to the OP and their reply of 27.4.1999. It is as the result of this correspondence that the respondent Airlines paid him Rs.33,622.69 for the loss of baggage in September, 1999 and Rs.26,190.48 towards the cost of unused ticket in September, 2000. The details are at pages 214 onwards of the paper book. 6. In furtherance of his plea of continuous cause of action, the appellant/complainant has also pointed out that he was first offered a settlement $ 20,000 US in February, 2005 which was followed by the offer of $ 55,000 US in November, 2008. 7. Referring to this parallel effort of direct settlement the State Commission has observed that:- “The contention of the complainant that during the pendency of the case, the opposite parties had offered for payment of 55,000 US dollars for withdrawal of the case and required to him send an agreement of release and discharge on stamped paper for which he prepared and agreement and it may be implemented directing payment of compensation to the opposite parties on the basis of the offer made by them. This contention is not tenable and it is beyond the scope of the enquiry under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. If at all any offer was made and subsequently the opposite parties failed to abide by its terms and conditions, it is for the complainant to take necessary steps in appropriate Forum for recovery of the said amount.” 8. The State Commission has therefore, concluded that it cannot be said that because of continued correspondence and subsequent payments made by the opposite parties to the complainant, the cause of action could continue till the date of filing of the consumer complaint till November 2004. 9. The main point urged in the appeal before this Commission is that when the parties are constantly contacting each other for resolving the disputes, it should be treated as a case of continuous cause of action. ‘Cause of action’ means the whole of the material facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to allege and prove, in order to succeed. It has been defined as bundle of facts which, taken with the applicable law, gives the aggrieved party right to relief. Cause of action arises at any of the following places:- a) Place of contract. b) Place where the contract was, or was to be performed. c) Place where money was expressly or impliedly payable. 10. The Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation. Its provisions therefore, have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose for the enactment. It was therefore, held by Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. N.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (14) (SC) that “The Act meets long felt necessity of protecting the common man from such wrongs for which the remedy under the ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory………….The Act has to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. The primary duty of the court while construing the provision of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and is not contrary to attempted objective of the enactment.” 11. Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that the consumer fora shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen, except when the Forum/Commission is satisfied that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. In a case where the consignment was entrusted to the appellant in 1996 and on several occasions till 1999, its delivery was demanded by the respondent and the appellant had assured that it was in the process of locating the goods and requested the respondent to wait and had assured that it will inform about the status, it was held that in view of the request of the appellant to the respondent to wait till the consignment was traced, the limitation for an action would not start to run until there was communication from the appellant either informing about the loss or expressing its inability to deliver or refusal to deliver the consignment. The complaint was held to be not-barred under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. (Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Veljan Hydrair Ltd., (2007) 3 SCC 142 (149). 12. In another matter under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the builder/developer had agreed under an agreement of 1987 to provide a flat to the complainant and had later express his inability to provide it. In a subsequent agreement of 1991 he agreed to pay Rs 9.5 lakhs, in lieu of the flat. He failed to honour this commitment too. It was held by Hon‘ble Supreme Court that since the right under the agreement of 1987 had not been given up and the builder was constantly under an obligation to provide a flat, it could be said that the cause of action was a continuing one and the claim was not beyond time. (Lata Construction Vs. Dr Ramachandra Ramniklal Shah AIR 2000 SC 380). 13. In the light of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions discussed above and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the question whether it is a case of continuous cause of action, needs to be re-examined. It needs to be re-examined whether the appellant had, in terms of the provision in Section 24-A subsection (2), sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within a period of two years from the date of the incident at Jeddah airport. The matter is therefore remanded to the State Commission for examination afresh on the above lines. | 
