Meaing of "suit"

ITEM NO.125 COURT NO.10 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4290 OF 2003
E.I.C.M. EXPORTS LTD. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
SOUTH INDIAN CORPN. (AGENCIES) LTD.&ANR. Respondent(s)
(With office report )
Date: 21/07/2009 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR
For Appellant(s) Mr.Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vipin Gogia, Adv.for
Ms. Jaspreet Gogia,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The Appeal is accepted in terms of the Reportable signed order which is
placed on the file and the matter is remanded to the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi to decide the complaint afresh in accordance
with law by applying Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No order
as to costs.
(Parveen Kr. Chawla)
Court Master
( Indu Satija)
Court Master
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4290 OF 2003
E.I.C.M. Exports Limited ..Appellant
versus
South Indian Corpn. (Agencies) Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents
O R D E R
1. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short 'National
Commission') dated 06th February, 2003 passed in Original Petition No. 285 of 1997.
2. The facts of the case are:
The Appellant is an export house. It had booked certain goods through respondent
No.1 for carriage through respondent No.2 to New York, U.S.A. According to the
appellant, the goods were expected to reach in the second week or early third week
of February, 1995. It is alleged that the goods were never delivered to the consignee
in New York, although the goods had allegedly reached New York. According to
the appellant, the goods were kept in the Custom's Bonded Ware House in New
York which demanded US Dollars 5000 as demurrage.
-2-
3. Since the shipment was delayed and consequently the foreign buyer
refused to accept the consignment, the appellant filed a complaint before the
National Commission seeking a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of
Rs.39,81,351/- along with interest thereon @ 24% per annum from the date of filing
of the petition till realization due to the negligence on the part of the respondents.
4. The National Commission, by its impugned order, has dismissed the
complaint filed by the appellant as barred by limitation, applying Article III Clause
6 of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 in which limitation of one year
has been provided for filing a complaint.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the National
Commission has erred in dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation, applying
the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 in which limitation of one year has
been provided. He further contended that this Act does not apply at all to the facts
of the present case and instead Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
will apply.
7. Article III, clause 6 of the Schedule of the Indian Carriage of Goods by
Sea Act, 1925 provides:
“....In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged
from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is
brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date
when the goods should have
-3-
been delivered. This period may, however, be extended if the
parties so agree after the cause of action has arisen.
Provided that a suit may be brought after the expiry of the
period of one year referred to in this sub-paragraph within a
further period of not more than three months as allowed by
the court.”
8. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the
aforesaid provision will be applicable in the cases where a suit is filed. In the
present case, the appellant did not file any suit but filed a complaint before the
Consumer Forum.
9. The word “suit” has a technical meaning which denotes proceedings
instituted under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. All legal proceedings
in the country are not suits. There are petitions/complaints/applications before
various Tribunals or authorities but they are not suits as per Section 9 of the CPC.
In our opinion, a complaint before Consumer Forum is not a suit, and hence,
the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 is not applicable to the facts of the
present case and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 will only be applicable.10. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that assuming that the
Consumer Protection Act will be applicable to the facts of the case, even then the
complaint is barred by limitation.
-4-
11. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under:
“Section 24-A – Limitation period – (1) The District Forum,
the State Commission or the National Commission shall not
admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the
date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified
in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District
Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as
the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the
complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless
the National Commission, the State Commission or the District
forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning
such delay.”
12. Sub-section (2) of Section 24-A, quoted above, clearly mentions that a
complaint can be entertained by the District forum, the State Commission or the
National Commission, as the case may be, even after the prescribed period of two
years if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for not filing the
complaint within such period.
13. Accordingly, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the
National Commission and remand the matter to the National Commission to decide
the complaint afresh in accordance with law by applying Section 24-A of
-5-
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea
Act, 1925. If the National Commission comes to the conclusion that the complaint
had been filed beyond the prescribed period of two years, the National Commission,
after hearing both the parties, may condone the delay if it is satisfied that the delay
was because of sufficient cause and if it does so it shall decide the case on merits.
14. We make it clear that this shall not be taken as an expression of opinion
as if we are inclined to condone the delay. The National Commission shall be at
liberty to decide this issue on its own merits in accordance with law
without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
15. No order as to costs.
.................J.
[MARKANDEY KATJU]
NEW DELHI; .................J.
JULY 21, 2009. [V. S. SIRPURKAR]