K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member
Appellant was the complainant in CC.No.237/2013 in the CDRF, Thrissur. His complaint was rejected by the Consumer Forum at the stage of admission holding that the complaint was barred by limitation in view of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The allegations on which the complaint was founded in brief were the following. The complainant was the owner of Tata Sumo Car bearing Reg.No.KL-8-KA-1809 and the vehicle was insured with the second opposite party. On 25.03.2002 three unidentified persons hired the car saying that they were going to Kottayam Medical College. One Suresh Babu, was the driver of the vehicle and the vehicle was hired from the taxi stand near the KSRTC bus stand, Thrissur. It appears that nothing was heard of the vehicle and the driver subsequently and hence the brother of the driver namely one Mohanan approached the Thrissur East Police Station and lodged complaint. Based on his complaint Crime No.125/2002 was registered under the caption œman missing?. While so an unidentified dead body of a male person was reportedly found in a valley between Murinjapuzha and Kaduvappara. Accordingly Crime No.45/2002 of Peruvanthanam police station was registered Under Section 174 CRPC. That body was identified to be that of the missing driver of the complainant. Accordingly Section 174 CRPC was deleted and crime was registered Under Sections 302 and 392 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and investigation proceeded. The crime was subsequently investigated by the CBCID, Ernakulam as per the order of Additional DGP Crimes. It appears that the vehicle was never traced and the culprits could not be apprehended. Accordingly final report was filed by the Detective Inspector,CBCID , Sub Unit, Thrissur on 08.03.2010. after 6 years and 11 months recommending closure of the case as undetected. It is specifically reported that though every efforts were made neither the accused nor the stolen vehicle could be located. Subsequent to the filing of the final report the present complaint is filed on 20.05.2013. It is specifically alleged in the complaint that even though the complainant was always enquiring with the Thrissur Town East Police with regard to the progress of the investigation, he was always told that the matter was under investigation. But when the final report was filed closing the case as undetected, no notice was given to the complainant. He had no other source of information regarding the final report. So when he got the information regarding the final report he submitted application for copy which he obtained only on 05.10.2013. So on the allegation that cause of action has arisen when he got information regarding the closure of the case the present complaint is filed alleging that there is no limitation in filing the case.
It is true that theft of the vehicle happened as early as on 25.03.2002. But the final report for closure of the case was filed only on 08.03.2010 when the police finally accepted that the vehicle could not be traced. It is also pertinent to notice that the complainant had earlier approached the CDRF, Thrissur and filed OP.No.311/2003 claiming the insured amount from the opposite parties. At that time the Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint as premature. Obviously the cause of action could have arisen only on filing the final report closing the case as undetected. The question is whether the allegations in the complaint justifying the delay from 08.03.2010 to 20.05.2013 can be accepted. From the starting of the cause of action the complainant would get two years to file the complaint, if the insurance company is not making the payment . Here there is delay of 14 months beyond the period of two years. This delay is explained by alleging that whenever he enquired about the progress of investigation he was only told that the crime was under investigation and he was never given notice of the closure of the crime. It is evident from the fact that the FIR was actually lodged by the brother of the deceased driver and from the notice accompanying final report that only the brother of the deceased driver was given notice of the closure of investigation of the crime and filing of the final report. Obviously there is force in the allegation in the complaint that he did not come to know of the filing of the final report immediately and that was the reason for the delay .Prima facie there is nothing to disbelieve the complainant especially after the long course of investigation he was not expected to go to the police station every day and enquire about the progress of the investigation. It follows that the District Consumer Forum was not justified in rejecting the complaint at the stage of admission. Hence the order of the District Consumer forum is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Consumer Forum, Thrissur in CC.No.237/2013 dated 31.05.2013 is set aside .The Consumer Forum is directed to take back the complaint on file, give notice to the opposite parties and proceed to dispose of the complaint on merits in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their costs in the appeal.