Counsels for the contesting parties are present and filed their hazira. This is a time barred complaint petition filed on 27.02.15 by the complainant along with a delay condonation petition praying for condoning delay.

After service of notice to the Ops, Op2 & 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their objection on such delay condonation petition of the complainant. But Op1 who was an agent of Op2 & 3  never appeared nor filed any objection in spite of receipt of notice as confirmed by the postal department vide their letter dt.21.04.15 with a postal remark that notice was delivered to Op1 on 18.03.15 and hence, Op1 was set ex parte on 07.05.15.

Heard, the learned counsels of the, contesting parties. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that, the complaint petition filed for realization of insurance dues should have been filed on or before 17.06.11 within the period of limitation and Ops have not denied to pay the insured amount in writing and verbally and even after issue of lawyers notice. Ops remain silent which proves that Ops have not denying the claim for which the complainant was prevented by sufficient cause not to prefer this case in time. Further the learned counsel for complainant submitted that the Act being quasi judicial nature, no strict principle of law is to be adhered with as the intention of the legislators is to provide maximum justice to the citizen of India who are having been harassed by others.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the Op2 & 3 submitted that the petition for condonation of delay is not maintainable in the eye of law that the complainant has not assigned good and sufficient cause for condonation inordinate delay in filing this case and the lawyer’s notice issued after 5 years and 4 months after the cause of action which has no meaning at all to this Op 2 & 3 for condonation of delay.

Section 24 (A) ii of C.P. Act 1986 depicts that notwithstanding contained in sub-section (i) a complainant may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (i) if the complainant satisfies the district forum, state commission or the national commission, as the case may be that 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 record its reasons for condoning such delay.

In view of above facts and submissions laid by the learned counsel it is observed that cause of action had been arised on 17.06.2009 whereas the complaint filed on 27.02.15, meaning thereby, complainant has been filed after 5 years, 8 months & 10 days whereas as per provision of section 24 (A) i, complaint was to be filed within a period of 2 years. Though an application U/s 24 (A) ii has been filed by the complainant for condonation of delay basing continuation of oral and verbal contact to Op1 instead of Ops 2&3 and issuing a lawyer’s notice to Op 2&3 on dt.18.10.14 and the said notice received by Op 2&3 on dt.22.10.14 after a gap of 5 years, 4 months is not a valid ground and no sufficient cause shown against the Op 2&3 nor filed any cogent or plausible evidence except the said lawyer’s notice at belated stage against these Ops for condonation of delay of 3 years, 8 months & 10 days from the due date of limitation i.e. from 17.06.11 i.e. 2 years as laid down limitation in the Act and without giving sufficient cause/reason of such delay of each days i.e. from 17.06.11 to the date of filing. It is also observed that Op1 who is an agent of Op 2&3 and the complainant had only relied over Op1 i.e. the agent, which cannot be saddled for relief by the complainant after a long gap and as per contract of insurance with the Op 2&3 there was no such obligation found under the contract of insurance by the complainant.

In the light of above discussion, we are of view that the petition for condo nation of delay filed by the complainant after 5 years, 8 months & 10 days from the date of cause of action is not taken in to consideration and hence rejected, simultaneously the complaint petition of the complainant was time barred, hence dismissed the complaint petition of the complainant as time barred.

And accordingly, both the petition filed by the complainant is disposed off.