This was an appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (the Commission). The appellant was an export house. It booked certain goods through the first respondent for carriage through the second respondent to New York, USA. According to the appellant, the goods were expected to arrive in the second or early third week of February 1995. The appellant alleged that the goods were never delivered to the consignee in New York, although the goods had reached New York. According to the appellant, the goods were kept in a Customs bonded warehouse in New York, which demanded USD 5,000 as demurrage. Since the shipment was delayed and the foreign buyer refused to accept it, the appellant filed a complaint before the Commission seeking a direction to the respondents to pay INR 39,81,351 due to their negligence. The Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant as barred by limitation, applying art 3.6 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held: Appeal allowed.

Article 3.6 of the Schedule of the 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 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.

On a plain reading of the provision, it is clear that it will be applicable in cases where a suit is filed. In the present case, the appellant did not file a suit but filed a complaint before a consumer forum. The word 'suit' has a technical meaning which denotes proceedings instituted under s 9 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908. All legal proceedings in the country are not suits. A complaint before a 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. Only the Consumer Protection Act 1986 will only be applicable.

Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides:

(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.

This provision clearly mentions that a complaint can be entertained even after the prescribed period of two years if the complainant satisfies the forum that it had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, the order of the Commission is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the 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 Commission comes to the conclusion that the complaint was filed beyond the prescribed period of two years after hearing both the parties, the Commission 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. The Commission shall be at liberty to decide that issue on its own merits in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.