Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Heard both the sides on delay condonation application. Considered the reply taking objection for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the non applicant/respondent.
As stated in para 2 of the application for condonation of delay, cause of action arose on 01/06/2009 when the non applicant/Insurance company informed the applicant/complainant that they are not willing to appoint an Arbitrator. It is further stated in the following para no.3 that the cause of action for the purpose of limitation starts when the opponent repudiated the claim of the complainant and they make reference to the Article 44, Part II of the Indian Limitation Act 1963. No other submission is made.
Reference to the provisions of Indian Limitation Act, 1963, supra, is per se erroneous since there is a separate provision regarding limitation in the form of section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Said provision is explained by the apex court in the matter of Apex Court in the case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC). Cause of action arose on the date of event i.e.26/07/2005 and, therefore, delay is to be explained with relation to accrual of cause of action accordingly. Nothing that sort of is done in the application for condonation of delay. Reference to a provision under the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, since it is not attracted in the instant case, is of no help to the applicant/complainant. It is not the case of applicant/appellant that they were unaware of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for brevity), particularly, about provisions of limitation to which a reference is made earlier. In fact they showed their awareness in this respect, since they referred erroneously to section 21(a) of the Act, in fact it ought to have section 24-A of Act. Certainly, it is not a case that they were under wrong impression interpreting the provisions of section 24-A of the Act. Therefore, we find that enormous delay 1071 days is not at all explained and, holding accordingly, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Misc.Application for condonation of delay stands rejected.
In the result, consumer complaint stands rejected.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 12th September, 2011
