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]