This is an application u/s 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 read with  sec.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Petition , Smti Mina Saikia filed an application for non-settlement of insurance claim of the complainant’s vehicle by the opp.party and there is a deficiency in service.

      It is alleged that vehicle of the complainant was theft and an FIR was lodged on 15.3.2012 and on 21.4.2012 submitted her statement of theft before the surveyor appointed by the opp.party No.1 i.e. ICICI Lombard. According to the petitioner, till date neither claim has been settled nor repudiated the same and no information has been provided to the petitioner .

          It is categorically mentioned in the condonation petition that petitioner being a widow had suffered  very financial hard-ship and was not provided with the status of the claim by the opp.party no. 1 and ignorance of the petitioner about the present status of her claim, she could not have filed the complaint petition and thereby there was a delay of 1425  days .

       The delay is beyond the control of the petitioner and it is submitted that there is no latches of negligence on the part of the petitioner. For that it is prayed that delay may be condoned.

      The above petition supported by an affidavit from Smti Mina Saikia  is heard and there is an objection petition filed by the opp.party  on 13.9.18 wherein the opp.party submits that petition is not maintained and is devoid of merit. The allegation made by the  petitioner  in the complaint petiion is denied by the opp.party  and opp.party submits that  the claim of the petitioner was repudiated  on 7.3.13 by repuidiation letter dtd.7.3.13.

      It is further mentioned that there is a delay of 40 days  in informing police about the lost of the vehicle which is a clear vviolation of Condition No. 1 of the Policy of insurance for which  the claim has been  repudiated. There were some other allegation about the breach of provision of Motor Vehicle Act  1988 etc, which is not necessary to discuss at this stage of proceeding .

      It is the law admittedly complainant have to file claim petition within two years from the date of arising to the cause of action and opp.party alleged that complainant have failed to show sufficient cause  which prevented her filing the complaint petition  within the prescribed period and pray for dismissal of the petition as delay has been done due to negligence of the complainant.

      Opp.party No. 3 had took time for filing objection petition and ultimately filed written statement denying all the allegations made in the complaint petition that a preliminary objection with complaint petition filed by the claimant      is        process of law and not maintainable.

   The opp.party No. 3 have arise objection stating that complaint petition is  barred by limitation and no cause of action has been arose within the limitation . The w.s filed by opp.party No.3 is also perused  for consideration of condonation petition as well. At this stage today on perusal on record , it appears that till 19.2.20 both the parties were present and heard on the condonation petition and thereafter matter is pending for necessary order.  As such we do not  find it necessary for further hearing .

    Here it is submitted by the claimant that due to not receipt of the repudiation letter as alleged the complainant could not have filed he present claim petition as she was awaiting for reply from the opp.party.

    According to her, no communication has been made to the complainant about repudiation of her claim made before the opp.party. There is no specific evidence brought by the opp.party to establish the fact that claim petition of the complainant was duly intimated to her by the opp.party and the repudiation notification was duly served. But there is no specific proof of serving the repudiation letter  to the complainant by the opp.party. The opp.party could have easily submitted the process of service of notice by submitting copy of postal receipt or other means of service of the repudiation letter to the complainant which is not done  by the party in his objection petition and therefore, we cannot say simply that complainant was informed  about the repudiation.

     Out considered view  is that  claimant become a woman was waiting for response from the opp.party about her theft claim of the vehicle, but she had not received reply from the opp.party for which she became bound to file the present petition.

    As such it cannot be said that cause of action arose in the present petition on the date of repudiation without receiving the same by the complainant.

     The delay of lodging   complaint need to be considered in a logical way  so that the parties will not be deprive for making her legitimate the right to claim for the reasons of not making the petition in the strict sense of the period of limitation .

     As such limitation petition is allowed . The matter be fixed for admission hearing . Accordingly , Misc.Case is disposed of.