1.      The present Revision Petitions are filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 12.06.2019, passed by the learned Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘State Commission’) in FA Nos. 572/2018 and 580/2018, wherein the Appeal filed by the Respondents/ OPs being FA/572/2018 was allowed and the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/Complainant being FA/580/2018 was dismissed and the Order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dausa (“District Forum”) in CC No. 92/2018 which allowed the said Complaint was set aside.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a Mahindra tractor 275 DI Registration No.RJ-29RA 7410 for agricultural and personal use, insured by the Respondents from 08.02.2003 to 07.02.2004, with a sum insured of Rs.4,86,000/. On 04.12.2013, he took the tractor to his friend's farm in Prahladpura for agricultural work. After completing the work, he stayed overnight and parked the tractor in the field. The next morning, the tractor was found missing, presumed stolen. The Petitioner and his friend searched for the tractor but could not find it. He attempted to file an FIR at Police Station Lalsot, but the police did not lodge the FIR. Subsequently, on 07.12.2013, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the ACJM, Lalsot, who directed police to lodge the FIR on 11.12.2013.  The Petitioner informed the Respondents of the incident on the same day and submitted the claim along with required documents. However, the Respondents neither paid the insured amount nor rendered any satisfactory response. On 05.03.2018, he filed Consumer Complaint No. CC/92/2018 before the District Forum Dausa, Rajasthan, seeking payment of Rs.5,11,555/- along with interest @ 18% from 05.12.2013, Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment, and Rs. 20,000/- as costs.

4.      In reply before the District Forum, the OPs contended that the Petitioner failed to inform them immediately about the theft as required under the policy terms, constituting a breach of policy conditions.  The FIR was lodged on 16.12.2013 whereas the tractor was stolen on 04.12.2013, after an unreasonable delay, prejudicing their ability to investigate the claim, as the stolen vehicle could have been taken far or dismantled. The OPs also questioned the circumstances of the theft, implying that the Petitioner did not take adequate precautions to secure the tractor. They denied any deficiency in service, claiming that the complaint is premature since the Petitioner failed to provide necessary documents and information to process the claim. The OPs highlighted that the tractor was hypothecated to ICICI Bank Ltd., which was not made a party to the complaint, making the complaint liable for dismissal. The Respondents also pointed out discrepancies in the Petitioner's submissions and argued that the tractor was used for purposes other than personal agricultural use, breaching policy conditions.       They sought to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5.      The learned District Forum, vide Order dated 09.07.2018 allowed the Complaint and directed the Respondents as under:-

“ORDER

11.      Hence, the complaint filed by the Complainant Kaluram Meena against the respondent insurance company under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, is allowed and ordered the respondent insurance company to pay the insured amount of the vehicle amounting to Rs.4,84,000/- to the complainant. The said amount will be paid to the complainant only after providing letter of subrogation, indemnity bond and power of attorney to the respondent insurance company.

  The respondent insurance company, will make the payment of the said amount of Rs.4,84,000/- @ 9% interest from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 28.02.2018 and Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of litigation.  The order is to be complied within one month from the date of order.”                 

6.      Being aggrieved, the Respondents/OPs filed an Appeal No. 572 of 2018 and the Complainant filed Appeal No. 580 of 2018 against the order dated 09.07.2018 of the learned District Forum and the State Commission vide order dated 12.06.2019 allowed the Appeal No. 572 of 2018 and dismissed the Appeal No.580 of 2018 and set aside the District Forum order dated 09.07.2018 with the following observations:-

“The arguments heard and read the documents.

The tractor of the complainant was insured from 08.02.2013 to 07.02.2014 for Rs. 4,86,000/-. The said tractor was stolen on 04.12.2013. The FIR was filled in Police Station, Lalsot on dated 05.12.2013 but the police asked to come tomorrow. Thereafter on 07.12.2013 the FIR was recorded through Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalsot. In this case, the theft took place on 04.12.2013, the complainant should have filed the case on the same day, but the complaint was received on dated 05.03.2018. As per Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act the limitation to file the complaint for 04.12.2013 gets over on 03.12.2015. The complainant is considering the limitation period of filing the complaint from the date of cancellation of the claim i.e. dated 18.12.2017. In this regard, the following cases are being referred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the National Commission: -

(2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 768 Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Company vs. National Insurance Company & Anr the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case has held that:-

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986-S.24-A Limitation - Dismissal of complaint on the ground of limitation alone-Mandatory duty of consumer fora regarding- Express duty of consumer fora to dismiss complaints which are barred by limitation and where no sufficient cause has been shown, re- emphasized

B. Limitation-Cause of action -Meaning and import, discussed - Held, it has wide import, different meanings in different contexts-Words and Phrases- "Cause of action"

C. Consumer Protection Act, 1986--S.24-A-Limitation- Cause of action/starting date- Complaint whether barred by limitation -fire in complainant's godown on 22-3-1988/23-3-1988 damaging insured tobacco stocks Compliant filed on 24-10-1997 i.e. after more than nine years and that too without any application for condonation of delay (limitation being two years) -Effect- Held, the cause of action began on 23-3-1988, when fire in the godown took place damaging the insured crops -The complaint was manifestly barred by limitation and the National Commission was justified in dismissing it on this short ground- Limitation for the purpose of S. 24-A began to run from 23-3-1988.

D. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -S.24-A -Limitation - Extension of limitation - Permissibility- Plea of non- issue of insurance claims form and non-processing of claim Maintainability- Complainant for the first time asking for claim forms on 6-11-1992 for cause of action which arose on 23-3-1988- On facts, held, extension of limitation is not permissible on the said plea which ought to have been filed within two years from the cause of action i.e. from 23-3-1988 (when fire damaged the insured goods)

  IV (2011) CPJ 114 (NC) Ramratan M. Shriwas V/s Jayant H. Thakkar the Hon'ble National Commission has held that the:-

  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(g), 21 (b), 24-A – Flat – Agreement - Non-honouring of commitments –Limitation - Forums dismissed complaint -Hence revision - Contention, continuous and long correspondence between parties and hence case of continuing cause of action - Not accepted - Once a period of limitation Starts, it cannot be enlarged or extended by prolonged correspondence between parties - provision regarding limitation being of mandatory nature, Fora below was duty bound to determine whether complaint is within limitation period- complaint barred by limitation.

IV (2013) CPJ 182 (NC) S.V. Hari V/s Mysore Urban Development the National Commission has held that the:-

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 24A, 21(b) limitation - Extension of period - Mere representation not continuous cause of action - Cancellation of allotment - Petitioner came to know in year 2004 that allotment of site has been cancelled and money was to be refunded to him - Merely by making representation on year 2005 and 2007, limitation to file complaint does not extend and there is no question of continuous cause of action-complaint barred by time.

  As per the judgments mentioned above by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission, the period started on 04.12.2013 from the day of the cause of action by the complainant and the limitation of the suit is expired on 03.12.2015. If there is any correspondence between the parties, then it does not waive the limitation period. The limitation period can be granted only as per the provisions in the Limitation Act. In this case the limitation period was over. The complaint that the Hon'ble District Forum has allowed is not right, it is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the appeal of United Insurance Company is to be allowed, the appeal of the complainant is therefore dismissed. Therefore, the order of the subordinate district forum is set aside by allowing the appeal of the United Insurance Company and the appeal of the complainant Kaluram is dismissed.”

7.      Being dissatisfied, the Petitioner/Complainant filed the present Revision Petitions No.2019 and 2020 of 2019 against the Order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the State Commission.

8.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Complainant/ Petitioner reiterated the facts stated in the complaint and grounds advanced in the revision petitions. It was contended that the intimation of loss was given to both the Police and the Insurance Company immediately after the incident. The claim was filed with the Insurance Company on 05.12.2013, but the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 18.12.2017. Therefore, the cause of action commenced from the date of repudiation of the claim, i.e., 18.12.2017, not from the date of the theft of the vehicle, i.e., 04.12.2013. Therefore, the complaint filed before the District Forum on 05.03.2018 was well within the limitation period. The Counsel sought to set aside the order of the State Commission and uphold the order of the District Forum. He relied upon the judgment of this Commission in Meena Devi Vs. LIC, F.A. No.698 of 2018, decided on 28.11.2022.

9.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents/ Insurer supported the impugned order of the State Commission and contended that the cause of action arose on 04.12.2013, the date of loss of the vehicle, and the limitation period for filing the complaint expired on 03.12.2015. He argued that the complaint filed before the District Forum on 05.03.2018 was time-barred. The Counsel sought to dismiss the revision petitions with costs.

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the Orders of both the fora and duly considered the arguments advanced by the Counsels for both parties.

11.    The primary issue is whether the limitation period for filing the complaint should be considered from the date of theft i.e. 04.12.2013 or from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 18.12.2017?

12.    The Petitioner/Complainant’s argument is that the cause of action commences from the date of repudiation of the claim. In cases where a claim is repudiated by the Insurance Company, the cause of action typically arises from the date of such repudiation. In any case, the insured would not have a definitive reason to file a complaint until the claim is formally rejected or otherwise disposed of to his dissatisfaction. Filing of a compliant even before the claim submitted by the Complainant is considered and decided upon by the Insurer, would in fact amount to a premature complaint. In the instant case, the date of repudiation of the claim is 18.12.2017 and the complaint was filed on 05.03.2018. Therefore, it was filed the limitation period of two years, as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

13.    Regarding the merits of the case, it is uncontested position that the loss of vehicle in question was during the course of the insurance policy. The Petitioner had written a letter to the SHO, PS Lalsoth, Dausa, about theft of the vehicle on 05.12.2013, the day following the incident on 04.12.2013. However, the police did not register the FIR for reasons best known to them. From his side, the Petitioner provided reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR, indicating the initial refusal by the police and subsequent legal intervention. Ultimately, FIR No.455/2013 dated 16.12.2013 was registered at PS Lalsoth, Dousa, as per the direction of the ACJM, Lalsoth, Dousa.

14.    While the Complainant provided reasonable justifications, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., 2020 (11) SCC 612, held that delay in intimating the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle in question is no longer a critical issue.

15.    As regards the contention with respect to failure to take effective steps for securing the vehicle in question, it is undisputed that the vehicle was parked in the field at the time of the incident where the petitioner was doing agricultural work. The vehicle being a tractor, was parked in the field from where the incident of theft had occasioned. While the OPs alleged failure to take effective steps as ground for repudiation, the same has not been established by the OPs. Thus, the contention of OPs in this regard is untenable.

16.    In view of the foregoing discussions, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in settling the claim and its eventual repudiation. Therefore, the Revision Petitions No.2019 and 2020 of 2019 are allowed and the impugned order of the learned State Commission dated 12.06.2019 in F.A. Nos.572 and 580 of 2018 is set aside. The Respondent/Insurer is directed as under:

(i) The Respondents/OPs are directed to pay the Complainant Rs. 4,86,000/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint before the District Forum i.e. 05.03.2018 until the date of payment, within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of delay, the simple interest applicable for such extended period shall be @ 12% per annum.

(ii)The Respondents/OPs are directed to pay the Complainant Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation costs.

17.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.