1.  This Revision Petition No. 887 of 2019 challenges the impugned order of the MP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (‘State Commission’) dated 14.01.2019. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed Appeal No. 1639 of 2017 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa (‘District Forum’) dated 27.07.2017 wherein the District Forum, dismissed the Complaint filed by the Petitioner as barred by limitation.

2.      As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 8 days in filing of the present Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in I.A. No.7078/2019, the delay is condoned.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Petitioner/Complainant, are that he purchased a truck (Regn No. MP 17 HH 0403, Chassis No. 44026BSZ003533) financed by Respondent No. 3. The truck was insured with Respondents No. 1 and 2 for Rs. 12,00,000/- under Insurance Policy No. 00-08-9995-1803-00044006, valid from 25.02.2008 to 24.02.2009.  The truck was stolen on 24.09.2008, and the Petitioner reported the theft to the police on 26.09.2008. FIR No. 60 of 2009 was filed on 04.09.2009 at Thana Atraila. He informed Respondents No. 1 and 2 about the theft on 15.09.2009, but they failed to take action or pay the insured amount. Despite multiple reminders, requests and letters dated 04.08.2011, 22.04.2012, and a legal notice on 03.09.2015, the Respondents did not settle the claim.  Respondent No. 3, the financier and owner of the hypothecated vehicle, also failed to cooperate. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

4.      In reply before the learned District Forum, Respondents No. 1 and 2 contended that they issued the insurance policy for the period from 25.02.2008 to 24.02.2009 for the vehicle in question. However, the complainant never provided information about the theft to the insurance company, and no duly filled claim form was submitted. The documents provided by him dated 15.09.2009 and 30.09.2008, are forged. They further averred that the complaint is time-barred and thus not maintainable. They sought dismissal of the complaint with costs. In reply, he Respondent No. 3 contended that they admit to financing the vehicle for the Complainant but deny the remaining allegations. They averred that the Complainant defaulted on payment of instalments and Rs.55,88,299/- was due as of 07.09.2016. They denied any deficiency in service and sought dismissal of the case.

5.      The District Forum, vide order dated 27.07.2017 dismissed the complaint with the following directions:

“8. Besides above, vehicle of the complainant was stolen on dated 25.09.08, however, complainant filed this complaint in this Forum on dated 23.09.15 after about seven years, which is time-barred under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection act, 1986 from any point of view. In this regard, law precedent of Dharam Kumar Aggarwal Versus Bajaj Al l ianz General Insurance Company Limited and others 2012 (1) CLCC 234 is perusable.

9. Pursuant to above analysis, it is proved that the complainant violated the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy. The complainant has not filed compensation claim also in the respondent Insurance Company, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the respondent Insurance Company. Besides above, this complaint is time barred also. Therefore, complaint is dismissed. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties will bear their own respective costs of the case.”         (Extracted from translated copy)

6.      On Appeal, the State Commission, vide the order dated 14.01.2019 affirmed the District Forum order with reasons as below:

“Challenging the order dated 27.7.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa (in short 'the Forum'), in complaint case No.249/15, the appellant/complainant has filed this appeal.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant had filed complaint alleging therein that during the intervening night of 24^th-25^th September, 2008 appellant's truck was stolen from village Atraila patehara Road ,Thana Atraila, Rewa. It is stated that in spite of continuous search the truck could not be found. As it was insured with the respondents No. 1 and 2/ Insurance Co., intimation of theft was given to the Insurance Co. on 30.9.2008 and 15.9.2009, However, as the Insurance Co. paid no heed to it, he had filed the complaint on 23.9.2015 seeking compensation.

3. The Forum taking into consideration that the alleged theft took place on 25^th September, 2008, of which the complaint has been filed after seven years, dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation.

4. For recording the aforesaid finding the Forum has categorically held that the appellant prove that the intimation dated 30.9.2008 and 15.9.2009, exhibit P-2 and P-3, respectively were received by the Insurance Co. It held that no proof about delivery of intimation could be filed by the complainant.

5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the record, we are of the view that the Forum has committed no error in dismissing the complaint, holding it to be barred by limitation. The complainant did not pursue the alleged intimation, if at all it was sent. He filed the complaint after 7 years of the alleged theft. It has now been well settled that the repeated representation will not extend the period of limitation. We find no ground to take a different view in the matter.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”

7.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/complainant reiterated averments in the Complaint, Memo of Appeal and the grounds advanced in the instant Revision Petition. He asserted that the Insurer neither repudiated the claim nor accept the claim till date. The Petitioner received the Final Report from Police only on 09.01.2013 and he had sent many letters on different dates and also sent the legal notice through the Advocate only on dated 02.09.2015. He sought to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the Fora below.

8.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2 argued in favour of concurrent findings of both the For a and contended that the vehicle in question was stolen on 25.09.2008 and the consumer complaint was filed on 23.09.2015 i.e. after an inordinate and unexplained delay of around 7 years. The claim that the cause of action renewed on the day of filing of Legal Notice on 02.09.2015, is completely against the settled principle of law that repeated representation will not extend the period of limitation. He relied upon State of Orissa vs Pyarimohan Samantaray And Ors. (1977) 3 SCC 396; and Sanjay Singh vs Baby Chandna & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3334.

9.      The Counsel for the Respondent No.3 asserted that they are a formal party as financer of the said vehicle.  As per the Statement of Accounts, as on 04.04.2022, Rs.55,88,299/- is due to be paid by the Complainant.  In case the Revision Petition is allowed, he sought the amount be paid to them as financer and the victim in the entire case.

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the both the learned fora, and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.

11.    The learned District Forum passed a detailed and well-reasoned order dismissing the complaint being time barred and the learned State Commission dismissed the Appeal by well-reasoned order primarily because the complaint filed after 7 years of the alleged theft. It is well settled that the repeated representations will not extend the period of limitation.  There is no new ground made out by the Petitioner to interfere with the concurrent findings in the case.

12.    It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission.  In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. From the facts stated, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order of the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Act. I would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

13.    Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as regards revisional Jurisdiction of NCDRC:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

14.    Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

15.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed.

16.    All pending Applications, if any, also are disposed of accordingly.