Order Date: 25th March 2025
Order Name: General Manager, Eastern Railways vs Puspendu Dutta Chowdhury
Case No.: NC/RP/1573/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in New Delhi, presided over by Binoy Kumar and Justice Saroj Yadav, recently delivered a significant ruling. They determined that the filing or ongoing status of a criminal complaint does not justify delaying proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Allowing such delays, they argued, would undermine the time limits set out in the Act.
Here’s a quick background on the case: Mr. Pushpendu Dutta Chowdhury was robbed of several valuable items, including various gold chains and a ring, right in front of the Government Railway Police and Railway Protection Force in Howrah. During the robbery, he also sustained serious injuries and sought medical attention from government doctors. On the day of the incident, he filed a report with the Howrah Government Railway Police.
Following this, Mr. Chowdhury approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II in Kolkata, filing a complaint against Eastern Railways. The District Commission ruled in his favor, awarding him Rs. 1,50,000 in compensation, which Eastern Railways had to pay within a month. Dissatisfied with this decision, Eastern Railways appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. The State Commission modified the order, removing the penalty damages but adding a 9% annual interest on the compensation amount. Still aggrieved, Eastern Railways sought further review from the NCDRC.
Eastern Railways argued that the complaint should not have been entertained because it was filed after the two-year limitation period. They also questioned the reliability of Mr. Chowdhury’s account, citing a Medico-Legal Certificate indicating he might have fallen while boarding the train, with no mention of a robbery. Furthermore, they contended that the matter involved a criminal offense, which should be dealt with by criminal courts, not consumer commissions.
The NCDRC observed that the issue of the complaint being time-barred was indeed raised by Eastern Railways at the District Commission level, but unfortunately, it wasn’t addressed there or by the State Commission. Mr. Chowdhury argued that his consumer complaint wasn’t late because he had first reported the incident to the police and waited for the recovery of his stolen items. However, the NCDRC rejected this reasoning. They emphasized that a criminal complaint’s filing or pendency cannot serve as a valid excuse for delaying a consumer complaint, as this would negate the purpose of having a limitation period.
Consequently, the NCDRC set aside the orders of both the State and District Commissions, allowing the revision petition filed by Eastern Railways.
Takeaway: The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act. It clarifies that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a reason to delay consumer complaints, ensuring that the legislative intent of timely redressal is maintained.
