Learned Counsel Shri A. Sharma for the Complainant is
present.
Learned Counsel Shri S. Jindal for the Opposite Party
No. 1 and 2 is present.

The Miscellaneous application in the instant case has
been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
inter alia, an application praying for the condonation
of 905 days in preferring the complaint before this
Commission. The application was filed under Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. During the pendency of the
application, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was
introduced. Hence, there is no coral on the proposition
of law, and that the application is to be determined
under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Section 69 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 envisages the limitation
period for filing complaint. Sub Section 1 of Section
69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prescribed the
limitation period of two years for filing the complaint
under the Act, from the date of cause of action.
Further Sub Section 2 of Section 69 provides that the
period of limitation can be condoned if sufficient case
is advance by the parties for the delay.

It is also a settled law that there cannot be strict
jacket trend to determine such cases as the actual
situation will differ from case to case, However in
order to have a broad understanding of sufficient cause
it would be suffice to take note that any act which is
beyond the control of the parties can be safely
construed a sufficient cause.

The cause of action arose in the instant case on
16.12.2011, when the claim of the petitioner was
repudiated. The Petitioner has approached this

2
Commission on 05.05.2016. There has been a delay of
more than three years.

The Opposite party has not filed reply, however Learned
Counsel Shri S. Jindal who appeared for the Opposite
Parties objected to the condonation. This Court is in a
better position to take into account the averment made
in the application. The Complainant has explained the
reasons for the delay in the following paragraphs 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 which explains:
Para 3:
“That the Complainant / Applicant had, on December, 2005, filed claim against the said
Insurance Policy with the Opposite Party No. 1 and even after a lapse of 6 (six) months,
the Complainant / Applicant never received any communication with regard to his claim.
Therefore, the Complainant / Applicant wrote a letter dated 25.07.2006 enquiring about
the same. The Complainant / Applicant never received any response to the said letter as
well”.
Para 4:
“That after a period of 3 (three) years, the Opposite Party No. 2 wrote a letter dated
26.08.2009 to the Marketing Manager (D.M) Bikaner Divisional Office, Sagar Road,
Bikaner – 334003 stating therein that the claim of Complainant / Applicant falls under the
jurisdiction of the Divisional Office, Bikaner”
Para 5:
“That the Complainant / Applicant received a letter from the Sr. Divisional Manager.
L.I.C. of India, Guwahati, dated 16.12.2011, which repudiated the claim of the said
Policy. To the said letter dated 16.12.2011 the Complainant / Applicant sent a
representation for reconsidering of the claim to the Zonal Manager, L.I.C. of India,
Kolkatta”.
Para 6:
“That thereafter on 08.10.2012, the Complainant received another letter dated
01.10.2010, informing him that the Zonal Office Claims Review Committee has
examined the facts of the case and it has been decided to uphold the repudiation decision
of the Divisional Office and he may prefer an appeal to the Central Office Claims Review
Committee, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the letter dated
01.10.2010”.
Para 7:
“That aggrieved by the decision, the Complainant / Applicant on 03.01.2013, preferred a
review application before the Chairman, Central Office Claims Review Committee,
L.I.C. of India, Mumbai, assailing therein that the Office of the Opposite Party has erred

3
in arriving at the decision and further requesting therein that the said claim may kindly be
considered afresh. In response, the Opposite Party sent a letter dated 08.01.2013, wherein
it was stated that the Complainant / Applicant will be informed of the decision of the
Review Committee”.
Para 8:
“That the Complainant / Applicant then received another letter dated 27.08.2013, stating
that the Central Office Claims Review Committee has examined the facts of the case and
it has been decided to uphold the repudiation decision of the Divisional Office. However,
the Complainant was allowed to prefer an appeal before the Insurance Ombudsman, Pan
Bazaar, Guwahati”.
Para 9:
“That a review application before the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati on 13.11.2013
was preffered by the Complainant / Applicant has not yet been communicated about the
developments with regard to his review application.

On careful scrutiny of the averments, this Commission
is satisfied that the reasons assigned and the same has
passed the test of being sufficient cause.

The explanation given by the Complainant for the delay
is accepted. The complaint being CC/10/2016 of 905 days
is hereby condoned. The MA/01/2016 stands disposed off.