SRIBASH CHANDRA SAHA Vs. RUBBER BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following issues arise for consideration in the present petition:

(2.) Certain facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff-petitioners own and possess rubber plantation within the State of Tripura. Allegedly on 28th August, 2008, defendant-State Rubber Board deducted certain premiums towards the insurance policy, but did not remit the amount to the insurer. Unfortunately, on 22nd February, 2009, the said rubber plantation got gutted in fire. Vide notice dated 22nd March, 2010 and 4th May, 2010 plaintiffs set up their claim for compensation from the insurer. Vide response dated 21st May, 2010, their claim stood turned down. On 1st July, 2010, plaintiffs instituted a petition before the consumer forum claiming compensation, which holding the plaintiffs not to be consumer, vide order dated 6th September, 2013 stood rejected with liberty to institute a suit and take benefit of Section 14 of the Act. Resultantly, on 18th September, 2014, plaintiffs instituted a suit before a civil court having competent jurisdiction. Along with the plaint, an application both under Section 5 and Section 14 of the limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1095 days was filed. The said application stands rejected by the trial court. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) Ordinarily, this Court would have not examined the first question but for the insistence of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that independent of plaintiffs' right seeking condonation of delay under Section 14 [in view of liberty granted by the Consumer Forum], even under Section 5 of the Act plaintiffs have got a right to seek condonation of delay. Hence, at the threshold, the Court proceeds to examine the first question. Object & purpose of prescribing limitation: