Order No. 05 Date - 11.01.2021.
Record is put up for order in respect of application dated 23.11.2020 filed by the complainant praying for condonation of delay in filing the Consumer Complaint.
The matter was heard on 04.01.2021.
Fact remains that wife of the complainant obtained two Insurance Policy being Nos. 3001/MI-05078424/00/000 and 3001/MI-05078133/00/000 against Vehicles bearing registration Nos. WB-02-AL 9082 and WB 02 AL 9084 from OP. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. The period of insurance was from 25.09.2017 to 24.09.2018. The grievance of the complainant is that both the vehicle were stolen and a complaint was lodged to Joint C.P. Lalbazar vide E mail dated 18.02.2018. Maheshtala P.S. Case No. 157 dated 09.03.2018 U/ss 420/406 I.P.C was initiated regarding stolen of vehicles. Wife of the complainant, since deceased lodged claim to OP. OP denying payment of legitimate claim without any cogent reason. Having no other alternative, Complainant being the husband of the registered owner of the insured vehicles filed the instant complaint after a delay of 160 days. The main reason of delay is force measure condition imposed by Central Government and State Government to combat the pandemic situation arises out of Covid-19.
The defense of the OP is that the alibi of the complainant cannot be a sound reason to explain the day to day delay of 160 days. Thus, the impugned prayer of the complainant is liable to be rejected.
On perusal of annexure-L of the consumer complaint it appears that the OP rejected the claim of the complainant on 30.06.2018 but the instant complaint is filed on 23.11.2020 beyond the period of limitation as prescribed U/s 69 (2) of C.P. Act. 2019. Thus, there is inordinate delay in filing of the consumer complaint. It is well settled principle of law that any relief can be claimed under the
Act within two years from the date on which the cause of action accrues -
Section 69 of the Act deals with this situation which is reproduced as under-
Limitation Period -
69 (1) The District Commission, 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 satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complainant within such period,
Provided that no such complainant shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, recorded its reasons for condonation of such delay.
The provisions of Section 69 (2) of the Act being mandatory and rather peremptory in nature, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint after expiry of prescribed period of limitation. Admittedly, the complainant has filed an appropriate application for condonation of delay but failed to satisfy it that he has sufficient cause for not to file the complaint within the prescribed period of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The alibi of the complainant cannot be a sound reason to explain the day to day delay of 146 days.
For the reasons stated herein above, the Miscellaneous Application U/s 69 (2) of CP Act. 2019 is rejected on contest but without any cost.
Thus, MA being No. 289 of 2020 is disposed of.
Resultantly, the Consumer Case is not admitted being barred by limitation.
It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the complaint shall not come in the way of complainant availing such other remedy as may available to him in law.
