STATE BANK OF INDIA versus M/S. B.S. AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES (I)

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 20-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 762 
A 
STATE BANK OF INDIA 
v 
M/S. B.S. AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES (I) 
Civil Appeal No. 2067 of 2002 
B 
MARCH 20, 2009 
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s 24A - Limitation 
period for admission of complaint by consumer forum - Held: 
Complaint is to be filed within two years from the date of accrual 
c 
of cause of action - Delay may be condoned for the reasons 
recorded in writing if sufficient cause is shown - On facts, forums 
below allowed the complaint and directed Bank to pay 
compensation to complainant for deficiency in service even 
though complaint was time barred - Plea that complaint was 
D 
time barred was raised by Bank but not examined by forums 
• 
below - Hence, complaint dismissed as time barred. 
In this appeal order passed by National Consumer 
Disputes Redressal Commission allowing the complaint 
E 
filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection 
Act, 1986 for deficiency in service and directing the bank 
to pay compensation to the claimant even though the 
complaint was time barred is under challenge. 
.,.. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1 Section 24A of the Consumer Protection 
Act, 1986 is peremptory in nature and requires consumer 
forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been 
filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of 
action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to 
G 
be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the 
~ -
complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, 
'shall not admit a complaint' occurring in section 24A is 
sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to 
examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed 
H 
762 
• 
" 
STATE BANK OF INDIA V. 
763 
M/S. B.S. AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES (I) 
within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter A 
of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint 
on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two 
years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if 
beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been 
shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in 8 
writing. It is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice 
of section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred 
by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the 
complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an 
illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be 
entitled to have such order set aside. [Para 8] [ 767-F-H; C 
768-A-B] 
1.2 In the instant case, at the first available oppor-
tunity in the written statement itself the Bank raised the 
plea that the complaint was barred by limitation. However, 
the objection with regard to limitation went unnoticed by D 
all the three fora, namely, District Forum, State Com-
mission and National Commission. [Para 12] [ 769-G] 
1.3 The letter dated April 21, 1994 with which bills and 
GR's were sent by the complainant to the Bank assumes E 
significance. The said letter clearly instructs the Bank to 
return the documents if not honoured by drawee by June 
7, 1994. The cause of action accrued to the complainant 
on June 7, 1994 when it did not receive the demand draft 
for Rs. 2,47,154/- nor received the documents. Thus, the 
limitation began to run from June 7, 1994. The complaint F 
ought to have been filed within two years therefrom which 
in fact was not done as the complaint was filed much 
thereafter i.e., on May 5, 1997. The complaint was 
apparently time barred. The complaint filed on May 5, 1997 
is even beyond two years therefrom. There is no G 
application for condonation of delay nor any sufficient 
cause shown and, therefore, the question of condonation 
of delay in filing the complaint did not arise. [Para 14] [ 771-
G-H; 772-A-E] 
1.4 On its plain averments, the complaint is barred H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C. R. 
by time and stands dismissed. The equitable plea that the 
bank was under an obligation to protect the interest of 
the complainant is not of much significance since the 
complaint has been held as time barred. [Paras 15, 17 and 
18] [ 772-F-H; 773-A-C] 
Union of India and Anr v. British India Corporation Ltd. 
and Ors. 2003 (9) SCC 505; Haryana Urban Development 
Authority v. B.K. Sood 2006 (1) SCC 164; Gannmani Anasuya 
and Ors. v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary and Ors. 2007 
(10) sec 296 - referred to. 
SumatideviM. Ohanwatay v. Union of India and Ors. 2004 
(4) SCALE 607 - dis

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.