Pendency Of Criminal Complaint Can't Justify Delay In Filing Consumer Complaint: NCDRC Allows Eastern Railways' Revision Petition

Brief Facts:

Mr Pushpendu Dutta Chowdhury (“Complainant”) was robbed of valuable items, including a chain (Rs. 9,145/-), a necklace (Rs. 37,789/-), another chain (Rs. 47,018/-), a gold ring (Rs. 9,063/-), and a hallmark chain (Rs. 34,900/-) in front of Government Railway Police and Railway Protection Force, Howrah. The Complainant also sustained grave injuries and was medically examined by government doctors. On the same day, the Complainant lodged a report with the Howrah Government Railway Police Station.

Subsequently, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Kolkata (“District Commission”) against Eastern Railways. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed Eastern Railways to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation within one month. Aggrieved by this order, the Eastern Railways filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (“State Commission”). The State Commission modified the order by waiving the penal damages but imposed a simple interest at 9% per annum on the compensation amount. Feeling aggrieved, Eastern Railways filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”), New Delhi.

Eastern Railways contended that both the District Commission and the State Commission failed to consider that the complaint was time-barred which was filed beyond the two-year limitation period. Eastern Railways further argued that the Complainant's version of events was unreliable. The Medico-Legal Certificate indicated that the Complainant fell while boarding the train and there was no mention of theft or robbery in the initial medical report. It also argued the Complainant. Eastern Railways also argued that the alleged incident constituted a criminal offence which falls outside the jurisdiction of consumer commissions and should be adjudicated by criminal courts.

Observations by the NCDRC:

The NCDRC noted that Eastern Railways raised the issue regarding period of limitation before the District Commission. However, the District Commission failed to address the issue. Further, the State Commission also overlooked this critical aspect.

The Complainant argued that the complaint was not time-barred because he initially lodged a police complaint with the GRP and awaited the recovery of the stolen goods. Only after the GRP failed to recover the goods, he decided to file the consumer complaint. However, this argument was rejected by the NCDRC. It held that filing or pendency of a criminal complaint cannot serve as a valid ground to condone the delay in filing a consumer complaint. If such a contention were accepted, the NCDRC held that it would defeat the very purpose of the limitation period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Therefore, the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Commission were set aside by the NCDRC. Consequently, the revision petition filed by Eastern Railways was allowed.

Case Title: General Manager, Eastern Railways vs Puspendu Dutta Chowdhury

Case Number: NC/RP/1573/2019

Advocate for the Petitioner: Sanjeev Kumar Verma

Advocate for the Respondent: Pawan Kumar Ray

Date of Judgment: 25.03.2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order