ORDER

28.11.2024

Sh. RAJESH, MEMBER.

1. Vide this order we will be deciding the admissibility of present complaint.
2. Present complaint has been filed by complaints seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay the insurance claim of the burnt truck along with interest, cost and compensation.
3. It is stated that the complainant is a registered owner of a truck open body bearing registration No. HR 55U 1268 which was hypothecated by OP No.2
4. It is stated that the said vehicle was insured with OP No. 1 vide insurance policy No. 366002/31/16/10002483 effective from 28.09.2016 to 27.09.2019 the IDV of the above stated vehicle was Rs. 18,00,000/-.
5. It is stated by the complainant that on 05.12.2016 the above said vehicle burnt completely due to fault in vehicle in the area of Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar Police Station Samaypur Badli.
6. It is stated by the complainant lodged a claim with OP NO.1 whereupon a claim of only Rs. 13,83,500/- was passed by OP No.1.
7. It is further stated that on 05.04.2018 OP No.1 forwarded a letter vide reference No. 366000/BCH-2920 to the RTO Gurugram Haryana stating that OP1 has approved the claim total loss NOS without RC for a sum of Rs. 13,83,500/- for the above mentioned vehicle and policy number. That the OP No.1 also requested to RTO to cancel / surrender the rC for non sue of vehicle and issue certificate for the same. 
8.  It is stated by the complainant that he made several requests to the OP No. 1 to release the claim as per policy being the vehicle of the complainant covered under insurance policy but company of OP No. 1 prolonged the matter on one pretext or another and didn’t release the claim in favour of the complainant till date. The complainant served a legal notice as well as reminder on 20.04.2024 to the OP No.1 and same served on 22.04.2024 but the OP No.1 neither released the claim nor even bothered to reply the legal notice as well as reminder.
9. Therefore, complainant is before this commission seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay the claim amounting to Rs. 18,00,000/-along with interest, cost and compensation
10. We have heard Sh. Ajay Kumar counsel for complainant on the issue of maintainability of the present complaint and perused the record available with us.
11. A preliminary issue arises in the present complaint whether the present complaint has been filed within limitation period.   
12. In the present case, complainant has admitted that on  05.04.2018 OP No.1 forwarded a letter vide reference No. 366000/BCH-2920 to the RTO Gurugram Haryana stating that OP1 has approved the claim total loss NOS without RC for a sum of Rs. 13,83,500/- for the above mentioned vehicle and policy number, however same was not released by the OP1 despite requests, hence, the cause of action in the present case appears to have arisen on 05.04.2018. Therefore, the present complaint should have been filed on or before 04.04.2020 i.e. within two years of arising of cause of action as per section 69 of C.Pl. Act, 2019, however, same has been actually filed on 08.10.2024 with a delay of 04 years, 06 months, 04 days.

13. Before dealing with the issue in hand let us 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.

14. 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.

15. 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 nonpayment of insurance claim the cause of action may refer to the date on which OP undertook to pay the part claim though or on repudiation of entire claim.
16. Now applying the above discussed provisions of law and Principles laid down in the present case. As per admitted facts by the complainant the cause of action in favour of the complainant and against the OP finally arose on 05.04.2018. The present complaint is admittedly filed on 08.10.2024. However, present complaint should have been filed on or before04.04.2020 i.e. within a period of two years from the date when cause of action finally arose which is 05.04.2018 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.
17. 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 04 years, 06 months and 04 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.

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 28.11.2024.

(SANJAY KUMAR)              (NIPUR CHANDNA)             (RAJESH)

PRESIDENT                       MEMBER                           MEMBER