CC.No.3/2018

Dated:22.01.2018

Complainant present along with his counsel. We have heard arguments on admission, perused the complaint and its annexures. It is the specific case of the complainant whose vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA53 A 9349 insured with the O.P and the said vehicle met with an accident on 21.04.2014, it is stated that, complainant intimated the fact of accident to the O.P on the same day but not produced any prima-facie evidence and stated that the O.ps addressed a letter dated 30.10.2014 asked the complainant furnish repair bills and money receipt, vehicle to be produced for inspection survey.  The complainant complied the demand made by the O.Ps but failed to settle the claim. Hence this complaint.

       It is worth to note that complainant himself stated that the cause of action accrued to him on 21.10.2014  and on 30.10.2014.  As per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection  Act it reads thus:-

“[24A. Limitation period.—

(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.]”

        In the light of above the complainant did not satisfactorily explained in order to condone the delay in filing the complaint.  Furthermore, regarding the delay complainant did not state or whispered anything in his complaint.  However, during the course of hearing on admission complainant filed delay condonation application  but on going through the affidavit filing in support of the application we find there is no sufficient grounds or not satisfactorily explained in order to overcome the delay. Viewing from any angle, we are of the considered opinion that, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. Under the circumstances, acting under Section 12 (3) of Consumer Protection Act the complaint is hereby rejected.