Order No. 06 dated – 22.08.2022
Record is put up for order in connection with Miscellaneous Application dated 13.06.2022 filed by the complainant praying for condonation of delay in filing the complaint case.
In course of hearing learned counsel for the complainant submitted that cause of action of the present case initially arose on 04.09.2017 when the OP National Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant and subsequently on 17.02.2022 when they received copy of order of the Ombudsman, Kolkata. The Insurance Ombudsman adjudicated the application of the complainant and passed order on 10.02.2022. On account of Covid – 19 pandemic consumer complaint could not file within the stipulated period of the two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. She further contended that if the complaint is not accepted after condonation of delay, it will cause injustice to the complainant and would be against the principles of natural justice. It was further argued that the delay in filing the complaint is neither intentional nor willful and the complainant has a fair chance of success and a good case on merit. Hence, the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the consumer complaint.
Per-contra, learned counsel for the OP/Insurer submitted that two claims of the complainant were reputed on 23.02.2017 and 04.09.2017 and last correspondence for refund was made on 25.08.2018. Thus, the last date of cause of action for refund of premium ended on 25.08.2018 but the complainant has filed the instant case on 13.06.2022. It was urged furthermore that there is a delay of 1387 days in filing the case from the last date of cause of action. Learned Counsel also submitted that the present case is filed on 13.06.2022 even after the grace period allowed by the Hon’ble supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in continuance of Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020. The other alibi such as work from home and/or Advocate consultation do not hold good ground for condonation of delay. Thus, the case is barred by limitation U/s 69 of the C P Act, 2019. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Application dated 13.06.2022 should be rejected with cost.
We have heard the Learned counsel for the parties and also given a thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by them.
Fact remains that the complainant had purchased Marine Cargo Open Policy from the OP National Insurance Company Ltd. and the policy was valid for the period from 17.07.2016 to 16.07.2017. Complainant suffered loss of Rs. 3,79,720/- and Rs. 2,07,217/- on 02.09.2016 11.09.2016 on account of pertaining to dispatch of materials from Muzaffarpur Production Unit to Rana Randhir Singh and Forbesganj Production Unit to M R Poultry, Golaghat, Assam. Allegation of the complainant is that they submitted two claims for indemnification of the above losses under the policy bearing No. 101100211 – 610000106 but the OP vide letter dated 04.09.2017 reputed the claim. Despite several letters and e-mails, the OP did not refund the premium amount for the supposedly lost period. Even, OP did not respond to such letters and e-mails to avoid their obligation.
District Commission 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 Commission, 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 69 is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Commission to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Commission 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 writhing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Commission to take notice of section 69 and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Commission decides the complaint on merits, the commission would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
The term “cause of action” is neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but is of wide import. It 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. Generally, it is described as “bundle of facts”, which if proved or admitted entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. Pithily stated, “cause of action” means the cause of action for which the suit is brought. “Cause of action” is cause of action, which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. In the context of limitation with reference to the present case, the date of accrual of cause of action has arisen on 04.09.2017 when the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant. It is settled that by serving the legal notice or by making representation by letters and/or e-mails, the period of limitation cannot be extended. Alleged deficiency in service took place on 04.09.2017 and the complainant belately filed the complaint beyond the limitation period of two years i.e. on 13.06.2022 with an application for condonation of delay. Since the complainant failed to convince us on the limitation point, there is no need to into the merit of the case. Thus, the delay condonation application is rejected on contest. No cost is imposed upon any of the parties.
Accordingly, M A being No. 382 of 2022 is disposed of.
Consequently, the consumer complaint (CC No. 213 of 2022) is not admitted and we reject the consumer complaint.
In view of rejection of the consumer complaint, Miscellaneous Application dated 14.07.2022 filed by the complainant praying for accepting additional document is infractuous and calls for no consideration.
Thus, M A being No. 468 of 2022 is disposed of.
