Adv. For the Complainant: -    Sri A.K.Mohanty

        Adv. For O.P1                      :-   Sri S.S.Mishra and Others

        Date  of filing of the Case  :-28.09.2020

        Date of Order :-    28.04.2023

                                                                             ORDER

                The complainant had filed this case on dt. 28.09.2020 shown as per on the order sheet, and after perusal of the document on record we found  that the cause of action arised on dt. 25.08.2017 when the repudiation letter received by the complainant and there is continuation of cause of action till dt. 16.06.2018 where the insurance company required the necessary documents from the complainant regarding death claim therefore  no document on the record which shows the continuation of cause of action.

                As per the law of limitation prescribed in Sec 69 of CP Act 2019 is as follows.

 (1)         The  District Commission the state commission or the National commission admit a complainant unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arised.

                                                                      -2-

(2)          Not withstanding   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 commission as the case may be that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complainant within such period.

                Provided that no such complainant shall be entertained unless the District commission or state commission or the National commission as the case may be records its reasons for condonation such delay.

                After perusal of the complainant petition no where It is found that why there is a delay in filing the case and no prayer for condonation of delay placing with  sufficient cause of delay or a separate petition for condonation of delay.

                After perusal of the  order sheet it is found that nowhere on the order sheet the predecessor P.O mentioned that the court is  satisfied with sufficient cause placed by the complainant for condo nation of delay and admitted the case stating the reason of delay.

                As such the complainant case is  filed beyond  limitation as such barred  by limitation.

                As such we consider our view to dismissed the case “ in Limine”.