Order No.  12                        Date-01.02.2022

            Today is fixed for passing order in respect of the MA-320/2021 filed by the complainant. The matter was last heard on  07.01.2022  where Ld. Advocates for both parties were present. WO against the said MA has been filed by OP-1 i.e Indusind Bank Ltd. and OP-2 i.e. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. against the said petition u/s  69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

On perusal of the said MA, it is observed that the complainant Mr. Kaushik Kar has prayed for condonation of delay of 233 days in filing the instant complaint petition in view of constrained circumstances arisen due to covid-19 pandemic situation. As per his submission, the cause of action arose in the month August  2018 which had expired in the month  July  2020 and the complaint petition has been filed on  24.02.2021. The complainant has submitted that the delay is not intentional and has mentioned the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of relaxation of the period for filing new cases which could not be filed during the enforcement of lock down. Under the above circumstances, he has prayed before the commission to allow the complaint petition by condoning the delay of  233 days in filing the instant application.

Against the above submission of the complainant,  the OP-1 i.e. Indusind Bank Ltd. has filed their WO stating that is the complaint petition is not maintainable either in law or in facts. It is purely speculative, harrasive and abuse of the process of law. The complaint is false, fabricated and frivolous one. The present complaint case is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. In this context the OP-1 has mentioned that the complainant was a defaulter in paying the EMIs against the loan  of Rs. 8,50,000/- for purchasing a commercial vehicle of Ashok Leyland.  As on 21.09.2020 being the last date of contract period the complainant was liable to pay Rs. 4,48,452/-. Since the amount was not paid, the matter was referred to the arbitrator as per the contract in between the parties and the arbitrator has passed an award in its finality on  18.09.2018 where the complainant was not present. By virtue of said order the OP-1 took possession of the said commercial vehicle.  The OP-1 has stated that the complainant has not clearly mentioned the reason for delay of such a huge period and mentioned that in various judgments, Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble National Commission has clearly stated that the delay should be clearly expressed and since the reason behind the delay of such a long period of 233 days is not clearly stated, the instant complaint should be summarily rejected.

            The OP-2 i.e. M/S Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. has strongly objected and mentioned that the instant case has been filed on  24.02.2021 i.e. after a long lapse of 3 years 02 months 18 days from the date of repudiation i.e. 06.12.2017 i.e. the date of cause of action. The limitation period ends on 06.12.2019. There was ample time with the complainant to file the case within 06.12.2019 but he sat tight over the file. The complainant has admitted  that the cause of action arose on  06.12.2017 when the insurance company repudiated the complaint. The complainant wrote a letter to the bank and not to the insurance company. It is well settle principle of law that mere writing letter shall not create fresh  cause of action and shall not extend the limitation period. They have also mentioned that reluctance of the complainant in filing the case can be seen as he had sufficient time on or before 24.03.2020 on the date when the lockdown was declared and restriction was imposed. The complainant could have filed the case in between 06.12.2019 and  24.03.2020 as he had 107 days after the limitation has lapsed.

We have perused the submission of the complainant in his MA petition and the WO filed by the OP-1 and OP-2 and we have come to conclusion that the complainant has not  been able to establish the delay in filing the complaint petition. The lock down period started from 24.03.2020 but the complainant  has enough time to file the complaint petition much before 24.03.2020 as the cause of action arose on  06.12.2017 which ended on 06.12.2019  for filing the complaint petition. The complainant could not establish the delay in between 06.12.2019 to  24.03.2020. In view of the above, we are not inclined to allow the MA petition No. 320/2021. Hence, the MA  petition No. 320/2021 is dismissed and disposed off. Accordingly, the consumer complaint case  187/2021 stands dismissed.