SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT: Complainant Dilip Kumar Patel has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service. Case of the complainant in brief is that he is the registered owner of a two wheeler TVS Star Sports having Regd.No.OR-15-L-3922. The vehicle was insured with the O.Ps vide Policy No.37226487 issued on dt.14.7.2007 and valid for the period from 26.6.2007 to 25.6.2008. 
    2. During the validity period of the policy, the insured vehicle met with an accident on dt.29.4.2008. At the time of accident Subrat Kumar Patel  having a valid driving license was driving the vehicle, who died in the accident on the spot and motorcycle was got damaged. The motorcycle was seized by Kuchinda Police Station under Case No.65 of 2008. The seizure was made on dt.24.11.2008. According to the seizure list the date of seizure was 24.11.2008 and the witness and P.O. has signed on 24.11.2008. But the complaint petition shows that seizure was made on 29.4.2008.
    3. According to the complainant his son Sudipta Kumar Patel had informed to O.P.No.1 on dt.5.5.2008 regarding the accident, damage of the insured motorcycle and seizure of the same by Kuchinda Police Station. The complainant also intimated the O.P.No.1 regarding the damage of the 
motorcycle in accident by his letter dated.17.1.2009 sent through registered post with A.D. which was duly acknowledged. This letter, according to the complainant was returned by O.P.No.1 and received by O.P.No.2. O.P.No.2 issued a letter to the complainant stating that his claim is time barred and the letter was received by the complainant on dt.30.8.2009 and accordingly the claim was repudiated. 
    4. Complainant filed a writ petition before the Honble High Court of Odisha vide W.P. (C) No.18940/2012. The matter was heard and the writ petition was withdrawn by the complainant with liberty to file case before the District Consumer Forum. Certified copy was applied by the complainant on 24.9.2014, copy was prepared on 13.10.2014 and this case was filed on 14.10.2014. 
    5. According to the complainant O.P.No.1 is the appropriate authority to appoint surveyor to assess the loss and damages of the accident vehicle and along with this, it can sanction Rs.1 lakh benefit under personal accident scheme for death of the driver. For not providing the above benefits to the owner of the vehicle, O.P. has committed deficiency in service for which it is liable to pay the cost of the damaged motorcycle and pay to the complainant personal accident benefit which comes to Rs.2 lakhs. 
    6. On the basis of the above, complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the O.P.No.1 to pay the cost of the motorcycle along with personal accident benefit with admissible interest and cost of the proceeding. Complainant has filed Annexures- 1 to 9 in order to support his case.
    7. After receipt of notice, O.Ps appeared through their Advocate and filed written version. They have raised a point of law by stating that the case is hopelessly barred by limitation. The cause of action arose on 29.4.2008 and as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the case has not been filed within the period of limitation of two years, as such under section 24(a) of the Act it is liable to be dismissed. 
    8. Complainant took no action from 7.8.2009 till 2012 when the writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha  or till 2014 when the present case was filed before this Forum. Hence, this case should be dismissed in limine.
    9. O.Ps have admitted regarding coverage of insurance of alleged motorcycle and receipt of letter dt.11.8.2009 from the complainant. But they have denied regarding receipt of any other letters from the complainant or his son. O.Ps refused to depute any surveyor and repudiated the claim which was made after around 15 months from the date of cause of action. O.Ps have repudiated the claim which was received by the complainant on 30.8.2009, as per Annexure-7  of the complaint petition filed by the complainant himself.
    10. The O.Ps further state that law is crystal clear that when the limitation period is already exhausted and no action was initated by a party, then he cannot claim the extension of the period of limitation by filing an application before the High Court. O.Ps further submits that complainant is not 
entitled for personal accident benefit under the policy and also the own damage claim of the motorcycle especially in view of the fact that the same is time barred by the time when it was initiated and the deceased was not covered under the Policy.
    11. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the complaint petition, written version filed by the O.Ps and documents placed on record. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it just and proper that before going into the merits of the case, first of all a preliminary issue is to be decided, whether this case is time barred  as objected to  by the O.Ps ? 
    12. It is clearly evident from the documents filed on record that the insured motorcycle met with the accident on 29.4.2008, which was within the validity of the insurance policy. The O.Ps repudiated the claim on the ground of long delay in filing the claim and the repudiation letter was admittedly received by the complainant on 30.8.2009. So, from this date limitation period started. But thereafter, complainant remained silent till 2012 and in 2012 filed the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha.The complainant himself also withdrawn the case from the Hon’ble High Court. In the order of the writ petition nothing has been mentioned regarding condonation of delay. 
    13. This complaint petition was filed before this Forum in 2014 without explaining such long delay. Complainant has failed to explain or satisfy us regarding such long delay in taking action over the matter and filing the writ petition as well as this case. Complainant has failed to satisfy us at any point of time for condonation of such long delay in filing of this case. As per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 case should have been filed within two years from the date of cause of action. In this case the initial cause of action was on the date of accident on 29.4.2008 and subsequent date of cause of action was 30.8.2009 when the complainant received the repudiation from the O.Ps. This case was filed before this Forum in the year 2014. As such we accept the contention of the O.Ps that the present case is hopelessly time barred and not maintainable before this Forum. 
    Accordingly, the case is dismissed as not maintainable as time barred.