1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he purchased motorcycle bearing No. OR 10G 7638 from OP No.3 availing finance from OP No.2 and got insured the vehicle with OP No.1 vide Policy No.3005/11154915/10220/000 valid from 07.11.2011 to 06.11.2012.  It is submitted that the said vehicle was stolen on 17.11.2011 from the premises of his house and a complaint was lodge vide PS case No.169 dt.15.12.2011.  He also intimated the fact to OP.1 and a claim was registered vide No.MOT 02323268.  The OP.1 collected all documents from the complainant but on 01.8.2012 refused to settle the claim on the plea of 40 days delay in informing the Police regarding theft and legal notice dt.30.11.2013 to the OP also did not yield any result.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.3.00 lacs towards compensation besides cost of Rs.15, 000/- to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter denying the allegations and contended that according to the complainant, the motor cycle was stolen on 17.11.2011 but the case was registered on 15.12.2011 at TPS, Jeypore with 28 days delay and it was intimated to OP.1 on 27.12.2011 i.e. after 40 days of alleged theft.  The Ops contended that since there is delay in lodging FIR, the Insurance Co. is not liable.  The OP also challenged that the case is barred by time and hence is not maintainable.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP.2 filed counter contending that the complainant had taken loan vide loan-cum-hypothecation agreement No.16323051 and he has cleared the loan dues since 05.09.2012.  The present case is not maintainable against the OP.2 as the complaint relates to insurance issue and the OP.2 has no role to pay in it.  The OP contended that this case is directly or indirectly relates to Ops 1 & 3 and the complainant has no case against OP.2.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The OP.3 also filed counter denying the allegations and contended that the allegations are only against the OP.1 who issued insurance policy for the alleged vehicle.  It is contended that there is no memorandum of understanding amongst the Ops 1, 2 & 3 in the present matter and the complainant is to prove the same fact.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP.3 also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

5.                     Parties have filed certain documents in support of their respective cases.  The complainant as well as Ops 1 & 2 filed affidavits.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs except the complainant and perused the materials on record.

6.                     In this case, the complainant has purchased the motor cycle from OP.3 which was registered as OR-10G-7638 with financial assistance from OP.2 and the vehicle was insured with OP No.1 valid from 07.11.2011 to 06.11.2012.  The vehicle was stolen on 17.11.2011 and the fact of theft was intimated to police on 15.12.2011.  The OP.1 stated in his counter that the fact of theft was intimated to Insurance Co. on 27.12.12 i.e. after 40 days of occurrence.  Citing the reason of delay in filing FIR and intimating the Insurance Co. regarding theft after 40 days, the OP.1 has rejected the claim of the complainant.

7.                     It is seen that as per terms of policy, notice shall be given in writing to the Insurance Co. immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim but the complainant has intimated the fact of theft after 40 days to the OP.1 from the date of theft.  No explanation has been advanced by the complainant as to why he committed such a delay of 40 days in intimating the Insurance Co.  FIR also has been lodged in the local PS after 28 days of occurrence.

8.                     The OP further lodged objection on the point of limitation stating that they have rejected the claim on 01.08.2012 and the complainant has filed this case after 4 years and hence the case is barred by time.  Perused the record and found that the OP.1 vide its letter dt.01.08.2012 has repudiated the claim as per the grounds mentioned in their said letter but the complainant has filed this case on 15.7.2016 i.e. almost 4 years after the date of repudiation.  It is a settled principle of law that the limitation period would run from the date of repudiation.  U/s.24A CPA it is envisaged that the Forums under the Act shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action arisen.  In the present case the cause of action arose on 01.8.2012 and the complaint was to be filed with 2 years from that date.  As the complainant has not filed his case within such limitation period, his case is definitely hit under limitation.  Therefore, it can be safely held that the present case is barred by time and the case is liable to be dismissed.

9.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant as it is barred by time.  Parties are to bear their own costs.

(to dict.)