JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

         This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against Respondent/ Opposite Party challenging the impugned Order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the State Commission, Delhi in First Appeal bearing No.537/2018.  Vide such Order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal in limine while upholding the Order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North-East, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in Complaint Case No. 231/18.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased a Policy bearing No. 35101031146134808918 for vehicle-Swift Dzire having registration No. DL-13CA-4608 for Rs.4,57,066/- having validity from 18.05.2014 to 17.05.2015. It was the case of the Complainant that the said vehicle had met with an accident on 19.01.2015 which was duly intimated to the Opposite Party and a claim was registered. It was intimated by the Opposite Party that the claim was being considered on total cash repair loss basis. It was contended that despite completion of all formalities and requests to release the claim, the Opposite Party failed to give any compensation and further sent an intimation that the Complainant’s file had been closed. Thereafter, the Complainant had been continuously visiting the office of the Opposite Party, however, the Opposite Party had deliberately delayed the matter. It was also stated that the Complainant had already intimated the Opposite Party to clear his claim on the basis of total cash loss. Consequently, the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 19.01.2017 and a reminder to the said legal notice dated 06.02.2017 to the Opposite Party for release the claim. Thereafter, the Complainant was contacted by the Opposite Party on 07.09.2017, 01.12.2017 and 06.03.2018 and was assured that the claim would be released soon. However, the Opposite Party failed to release the claim. Therefore, the Complainant, being aggrieved by the omission of the Opposite Party in failing to pass the claim, filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practices by the Opposite Party seeking payment of Rs.4,57,066/-, damages of Rs.50,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.25,000/-.

3.      The Ld. District Forum vide its order dated 20.11.2018 had dismissed the Complaint at the stage of admission being barred by limitation while observing inter-alia:

“2. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for complainant and have keenly examined the material/correspondence on record. It is clear and apparent that the OP had closed the case of the complainant in May - June 2015 as NO CLAIM as is evident from the correspondence. However complainant did not take any immediate action on the closure and the e-mails were written by the complainant till 2016. Thereafter the complainant remained inactive for another six months till issuing of legal notice in January 2017. Clearly the cause of action arose in May June 2015 when the complainant's case was closed by the OP as NO CLAIM and despite sending several e-mails till June 2016, he received no response/reply from the OP. The complainant should have immediately taken action of filing action within two years from May June 2015 or even at best after his emails till June 2016 remained unanswered to by OP which was actually one year after closure of his claim. But on the contrary the complainant remained inactive for more than two and Half years sitting on closure of his claim by OP and suddenly sent legal notice to OP in January 2017 - February 2017 after two and Half years of closure of his claim and filed the present complaint after more than one and half years of issuance of legal notice. This cannot entitle the complaint for waiver of limitation period and it is pertinent to mention here that the complaint is not even accompanied with any condonation of delay application. The Hon'ble National Commission in the Judgment of ‘Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd and Anr. Vs Satinder Pal Singh’ II (2018) CPJ 245 (NC) has held that the complainant remaining inactive and suddenly sending legal notice to OP cannot entitle him for waiver of limitation period as any amount of correspondence cannot extend limitation period.

3. In light of the aforesaid judgement and settled law therein, even if the notice dated 19.01.2017 was not replied, the period of limitation would not extend beyond two years starting from May June 2015 ending May June 2017 and since the present complaint has been filed belatedly after one and half years, the same is time barred from the date of cause of action being perverse to the special limitation periods prescribed under CPA to resolve the consumer disputes in a speedy manner.”

4.      Aggrieved by the above order, First Appeal bearing No. 537 of 2018 was filed by Appellant/ Complainant before the State Commission, Delhi. The Ld. State Commission vide the impugned Order dated 01.08.2019 had dismissed the Appeal in limine while upholding the order of Ld. District Forum, finding no illegality in its order.

5.      Hence, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the above-mentioned impugned order of the Ld. State Commission.

6.      Heard the Ld. Counsels for Petitioner and Respondent. Perused the material available on record.

7.      As seen from the Order of the Ld. District Forum passed on 20.11.2018, the complaint was filed by the Petitioner on 2.11.2018.

8.      In the relevant Para No. 16 of the original Complaint, while the Petitioner never specified the dates on which his cause of action to seek compensation arose, he has nevertheless mentioned that such cause of action arose when the subject vehicle met with an accident; thereafter when the Respondent inspected the accidental vehicle and the claim was raised by the Complainant and the Respondent agreed to release the claim on the basis of total repaired loss.  It was further mentioned that the cause of action again arose on the date and time when the Respondent considered the Petitioner’s claim as “No Claim”, and thereafter when the Complaint sent Legal Notice and various reminders to the Respondent/Insurance Company.

9.      In Para 11 of the Revision Petition, the Petitioner had admitted that the Respondent/Insurance Company had sent a letter closing the claim as “No claim”.  Thereafter, in Para 12, the Petitioner has gone on to admit that he had received an Email from the Respondent in which it was mentioned –

“12.  ……….. We have not received any information regarding your decision on repair cash loss of your vehicle.  The final reminder is send on 28.05.2015.  Despite the reminders, you have not informed us regarding your decision. Hence the file is closed as NO CLAIM and a letter (dated 12.06.2015) INFORMING THE SAME has been sent to you.  Please find attached copy of letter.”

10.    It is, therefore, clear that lastly on 2.11.2015, the Complainant had been comprehensively informed that his claim had been closed.

11.    But, the complaint was filed exactly 03 years later, which is well beyond the limitation period of 02 years prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act.  The complaint was, therefore, certainly barred by limitation on account of which this Commission finds no grounds to interfere with the concurrent decisions of both the Ld. Fora below.

12.    It may, however, be mentioned that the period for limitation to pursue the claim in the normal Civil Courts could be different depending on the nature of claim, in accordance with the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963.  The Petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to seek any other appropriate remedy as permissible under the law, although there is no substance in his contentions on the point of limitation in the context of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

13.    The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.  No orders as to costs.

14.    Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.