Complaint Case No. 314/18
08.10.2018
Present :- None for complainant.
We have already heard arguments on application u/s V of Limitation Act filed the by the complainant it has been stated in the application that cause of action to file present complaint arose in favour of the complainant when the OPs refused to pay back accumulated premium amount of Rs. 1,66,500/- deposited with them from July ,2009 to June 2015 vide its reply dated 19.10.2015. It has been further stated that though cause of action arose on 19.10.2015 but the present complaint was filed on 10.08.2018 because complainant was very much under the mental tension , worry and financial problem because his wife continued to be ill since long time suffering from high blood pressure, kidney failiure, diabetic , retina failure etc. and that after death of his wife that the complainant could not take steps in the matter because he was badly shocked, took him considerable time to bear the loss of his better half. It is prayed in the application that a delay of eight months eighteen days in filing the present complaint.
Admittedly the complaint has been instituted on
10.08.2018 whereas the cause of action to the same arose in favour of complainant on 19.10.2015 and as a rule the complaint should have been filed on or before 19.10.2017 i.e. within two years of arising cause of action in favour of complainant.
The complainant has made abortive attempt to justified
the inordinate delay in filing the present complaint on account of death of his wife who remained ill for several months after cause of action arose. The record indicates that wife of complainant died on 08.12.2016, the complaint should have been filed on 19.10.2017 . Needless to say that complainant has to explain each day’s delay in filing the complaint within limitation. The complainant has not placed on record any documentary evidence as to his own illness after cause of action arose and thus has miserably failed to justified the delay. The National Commission in the case title CPJ 509(NC ) case tiled Richard Reja Singh Vs Ford Motor Co. Ltd. it was held as under :
Sec 24 A, 2 1(a)(i) Limitation - Accrual of cause of action-Cause of action for filing the complaint arose when complaint came to know for the first time that air bags had collapsed not deployed despite impact from TATA Vehicle – Neither service of notice or response to notice gave rise to any fresh cause of action of –Provision of Sec 24 A of the Act being mandatory and rather peremptory in nature . Complaint barred by law of limitation . IV(2010)CPJ 27(SC) .
In another case Hon’ble Supreme Court in case tilted Anshul Aggarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63(SC) it was held us under:-
It is also opposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such case for condonation of delay, the court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals /revision in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will set defeated in this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the Consumer Forum
In another case National Commission in case IV 2014) CPJ 507 (NC) titled PSPCL Vs Manoj Wadhwa it was held as under:-
Sec 24 A,2 1 (b) Delay of 106 days –expression sufficient cause cannot be erased from Sec-5 of Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach , which would defect the very much purpose of Section 5 of Limitation Act and Consumer Protection Act.
Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and circumstance and law point settled by the higher courts the complainant is failed to explain delay, therefore, the application for seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act rejected. Therefore, the complaint filed under section 12 is dismissed being time barred.
File be consigned to the record room.
(PUNEET LAMBA) ( K.S. MOHI )
MEMBER PRESIDENT
