Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-02-S-2083 (Tata – 407 Mini Truck)  has purchased policy for the vehicle covering the period from 27.9.2008 to 26.9.2009. On 26.3.2009 the vehicle was stolen. Thereafter, on 28.3.2009 the police was informed and  then the insurer was informed But the OPs insurer repudiated the claim on 15.6.2009 stating that the policy condition has been violated by the complainant. Thereafter, challenging the said repudiation, the complaint was filed by the complainant.

4.      OPs filed written version stating that the case is barred by limitation u/s 24-A of the Act and also policy condition has been violated because the vehicle left with original key inside the vehicle, as such the safety and security of the vehicle has not been taken care by the complainant. Therefore, they have repudiated the claim.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by dismissing the complaint without considering the materials with proper perspectives. According to him thecase was not barred by limitationbecause after the occurrence,  steps were taken by the complainant. He further submittedthat  the case is not barred by limitationbecause the repudiation was made for three times to the claim and lastly the claim was repudiated in 2010 and as such it is not barred by limitation. Again to clarify the matter he submitted that although the repudiation of claim was made in 2009, thereafter correspondence was made and finally OPs denied to reconsider the matter in 2010. The plea of the appellant was that the key was very much with the concerned driver, the question of safety and security  hasnot been well guarded by the complainant. Be that as it may he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the surveyor has computed the loss but the case was barred by limitation u/s 24-A of the Act for which he vehemently opposed for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal. He supports the impugned order.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

9.      The first and foremost thing whether the complaint is barred by limitation as alleged by the OPs. Complainant is required to prove that the case filed before the learned District Forum is within time limit. It is found from the order sheet of DFR that no permission was obtained to condone the delay and filedthe case. Admittedly, the occurrencetook place on 26.3.2009 and the case was filed on 16.10.2012. The record does not show that petition was filed to condone the delay. However, admittedly, the claim was repudiated  on 10.9.2009. Learned counsel for the appellant  submitted  that after repudiation,  they also asked clarification with regard to the order of repudiation. Complainant admitted to have made correspondence and lastly, he got answer in 2010 and as such, it is not barred by limitation.

10.    Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that getting clarification is no question of reconsideration. However, the main order being not set aside and the main order of repudiation passed on 10.9.2009 and case is filed on 16.10.2012, it is absolutely barred by limitation. Complainant was to file a petition to condone the delay. However, section 24-A of the Act is as follows:-

                   “xxxxxxxxx

24-A, Limitation period – (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfied the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he 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, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

11.    With regard to the above provision of law when thecase was filed after two years of cause of action without any prior permission and it has not been condoned by the learned District Forum, we are of the same view that the complaint case is barred by limitation.

12.    So far merit is concerned, we have to go through the police report but no police report is available on record so as to justify that the key was not in the vehicle, but it was with the driver of the concerned vehicle.

13.    In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, as such the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.