ORDER

28.02.2024

SH. RAJESH, MEMBER

1. Vide this order we will be deciding the admissibility of the present complaint.
2. A complaint has been preferred by complainants seeking direction to OP to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to complainants on account of insurance claim  along with interest, cost and compensation.
3. It is stated son of the complainants namely Sh. Rohit Yadav purchased three life Cover policies from OP vide policies No. 112911810 dated 10.02.2000  with sum insured as Rs. 25,000/- and vide policies No. 111686004 dated 10.05.1994 with sum insured as Rs. 1,00,000/- vide policy No. 111286172 dated 10.05.1994 with sum insured as Rs. 1,00,0000/-.
4. It is stated that that nominee was complainant No. 2 in all the three above mentioned insurance policies.
5. It is stated that insured son of complainants died on 02.06.2007 and due intimation of the same was sent to the OP. It is also stated that  the complainants have preferred a claim against the aforesaid policies before the OP alongwith all requisite documents and completed all the formalities as directed by the OP.
6. It is stated that OP had not taken any steps to settle the claim of the complainants. Hence the present complaint.  
7. We have perused the contentions raised in the complaint and heard the complainant on the point of limitation of the present complaint.
8. From the bare perusal of the facts and allegations made in the complaint by the complainant it is apparent as per the averments made in the complaint by the complainants that the cause of action in favour of the complainants and against the OP firstly arose on 02.06.2007 when the son of the complainants died. Complainants has pleaded that they have filed insurance claim with the OP, however, no document has been placed on record to substantiate the same except one undated application form. Therefore on account of subsequent events without disclosing dates and manner the complainants have not established cause of action if arose in their favour and against OP. The legal notice dated 06.04.2023 issued by complainants will also not establish cause of  action with regard to insurance claim of the deceased dated 02.06.2007.  
9. Therefore, the present complaint should have been filed on or before 01.06.2009 i.e. within two years of arsing of cause of action, however, same has been actually filed on 17.11.2023. Apparently the present complaint has been filed with a delay of 14 years, 5 months, 16 days. Now it is also to be considered that subsequent events i.e. communication between the parties as claimed by the complainant is sufficient ground to exercise our discretion to condone this huge delay of one year, six months in filing the present complaints. No application praying for condonation of delay of one year, six months has been preferred by the complainants.
10. Let us now peruse the relevant provisions of C.P. Act, 2019 dealing with the limitation same is reproduced as under.

Section 69 Limitation:—

(1) The District Forum, 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 Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

11. In State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP)=JT 2009 (4) SC 191, it was held as under: 

It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is premptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, shall not admit a complaint occurring in Section 24A (Corresponding Section 69 of C.P. Act, 2019)  is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A (Corresponding Section 69 of C.P. Act, 2019)  and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.

12.  In Ram Lal and Ors. v Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed"

"It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on the ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bonafides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the inquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."

13.     In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr.", II (2012) SLT 312 wherein it was held by the Apex Court as under:

        "In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of red-tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitments. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The Law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the department for the delay except mentioning the various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay".

14. 10.    In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2013(1) CCC 525 (NS) : 2009(2) Scale 108, it has been observed.

                "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition".

15. Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down as under:

    "There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of which is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence".

16. Section 69 of C.P. Act, 2019 provides that neither the District Forum nor the State Commission nor the National Commission shall admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The term "cause of action" is of wide import and has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. It refers to all circumstances or bundle of facts which if proved or admitted entitles the plaintiff (complainant) to the relief prayed for. In the context of limitation with reference to a contract for tour package which could be arranged due to any justified reason the date of cause of action may refer to the date on which the customer demanded refund of the advance amount from service provider / tour and travel company.
17. Now applying the above discussed provisions of law and Principles laid down in the present case. As per admitted facts by the complainants that the cause of action in favour of the complainant and against the OPs finally arose on 02.06.2007 when insured died. The present complaint is admittedly filed on 17.11.2023. However present complaint should have been filed on or before 01.06.2009 i.e. within a period of two years from the date when cause of action finally arose which is 01.06.2007 in the present case as stated above. Though thereafter the complainant spent considerable time in communicating and following up with the OP, however, same will be of no help to complainant since once a period of limitation starts, it cannot be enlarged or extended by subsequent events unconnected with cause of action against allegedly defaulting party.
18. On the basis of above statutory position, judicial pronouncements observations and discussions we find that the gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides is imputable on the part of present complainant. Accordingly, no sufficient grounds are made out for admitting the present complaint filed with the huge delay of delay of 14 years, 5 months and 16 days in filing the present complaint. In our considered opinion present complaint is hopelessly time barred therefore the complaint filed by the complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation.
19. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission  on 28.02.2024.

(SANJAY KUMAR )           (NIPUR CHANDNA)                 (RAJESH)

PRESIDENT                                  MEMBER                         MEMBER