- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Eicm Exports Limited v. South Indian Corporation (Agencies) Limited And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, an export house, booked goods with Respondent 1 for carriage by sea through Respondent 2 to New York, USA. The goods, expected to arrive in early February 1995, were never delivered to the consignee. They were instead kept in a Customs-bonded warehouse in New York, which demanded US $5000 as demurrage. The foreign buyer consequently refused to accept the consignment.
Alleging negligence, the appellant filed Original Petition No. 285 of 1997 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“National Commission”) seeking Rs 39,81,351 with 24% interest. The National Commission dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation, relying on Article III clause 6 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 (one-year limitation). The appellant appealed, leading to the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the one-year limitation period under Article III clause 6 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 applies to a consumer complaint filed before the National Commission.
- If the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act does not apply, whether the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether delay, if any, should be condoned.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The National Commission erred in applying the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act because that statute governs only “suits,” not consumer complaints.
- Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986—providing a two-year limitation with discretion to condone delay—governs the complaint.
Respondents' Arguments
- Even if the Consumer Protection Act applies, the complaint remains time-barred under Section 24-A.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court focused on statutory interpretation:
- Article III clause 6 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 discharges a carrier from liability unless a suit is brought within one year. The term “suit” has a technical meaning confined to proceedings instituted under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
- A consumer complaint is not a “suit” within this meaning; therefore, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act is inapplicable to proceedings before consumer fora.
- Consequently, limitation is governed by Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which prescribes a two-year period but empowers the forum to condone delay on sufficient cause being shown.
- The National Commission erred by applying the wrong statutory provision and failing to examine whether delay could be condoned under Section 24-A(2).
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; Impugned Order Set Aside; Matter Remanded.
The Supreme Court remitted the case to the National Commission to determine limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act and, if necessary, to decide whether to condone any delay before adjudicating the complaint on merits. The decision clarifies that the one-year limitation under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act does not govern consumer complaints, but no new precedent beyond this clarification was set.
Order
1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short “the National Commission”) dated 6-2-2003 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 1 for carriage through Respondent 2 to New York, USA. 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.
3. According to the appellant, the goods were kept in the Customs' bonded warehouse in New York which demanded US $5000 as demurrage.
4. 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 realisation due to the negligence on the part of the respondents. 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. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the National Commission has erred in dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation, applying the 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.
6. Article III clause 6 of the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 provides:
“6. … 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 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
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.
7. 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 CPC. In our opinion, a complaint before consumer forum is not a suit, and hence, the 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.
8. 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.
9. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under:
“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.”
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 (sic the Forum or Commission concerned) that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
10. 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 the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not the 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 or merits.
11. 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.
12. No order as to costs.
Alert