Complainant/appellant had taken a jewelers block policy from the respondent insurance company.  A theft took place on 03.01.2007 when he was traveling to Baroda.  Claim lodged by the appellant was repudiated by the respondent on 08.04.2010.  Being aggrieved appellant filed the complaint before the State Commission along with an application for condonation of delay.  State Commission taking the start of limitation from 03.01.2007 when the theft took place and not from the date of repudiation of the claim.  State Commission came to the conclusion that the complaint was barred by limitation and the appellant had failed to make out a case for condonation of delay.  Relevant observations of the State Commission read as under:

“The applicants state that since the claim was repudiated only on 08.04.2010, the claim of the Applicants against the Respondents has arisen only on the said date. The Applicants till then were diligently following up with the Respondents and Surveyor for the release of the claim amount and the repudiation came as a bolt from the blue to the Applicants. The present complaint is filed within 9 months of the said repudiation. However, there is a delay of 727 days from the date of loss for filing the complaint. The Applicants

-3-

submit that the delay was on account of the reasons beyond the control of the Applicants and there is no deliberate delay or latches on the part of the Applicants for filing the present. The Complainant therefore, submit that for the interest of justice the delay of 727 days in filing the present complaint be condoned.”

This application is opposed by the Opponent by filing written reply dated 3.6.2011 and he is stating that delay is not satisfactorily explained. Even for the sake or argument, assuming that the Complainant became aware to file consumer complaint referring to the date of repudiation dated 08.04.2010 of his insurance claim, it ought to have taken immediate steps thereafter, to file consumer complaint. It almost wasted 8 months before filing this consumer complaint. The delay occurred is not at all explained. Under the circumstances, we find that the delay being not satisfactorily explained, application for condonation of delay can not be allowed. We hold according and pass the order….:

          Counsel for the appellant contends that the limitation would start from the date of repudiation of the claim and not from the date of theft.  Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to defend the order of the State Commission.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in somewhat similar circumstances in “ New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. G. N. Sainani (1997) 6 SCC 383” held that the limitation will start running

-4-

from the date of repudiation of the claim.  Relevant observations are as under:

9. It would appear that the complaint was filed on the basis that claim on the policy was denied wholly by the insurer which was by letter dated July 25, 1989 of the insurer. The cause of action, therefore, arose on the date of denial or repudiation of the policy by the insurer. The question does arise as to when the claim on the policy should have been lodged. It appears the claim on the policy should have been lodged. It appears the claim on the policy should be lodged within a reasonable time. As to what is reasonable time would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Since on the basis of the record we are handicapped to know as to when the claim was lodged, we would, therefore, treat the date, July 25, 1989, when the time for the purpose of limitation had begun to run. As noted above this is the date when the insurer repudiated the claim on the policy. From this angle, therefore, the complaint filed by the assignee on July 23, 1992 is within the period of limitation. It is, however, a different matter when the insurer raises the defence that it had earlier informed the insured that the policy had ceased to be operative in terms of para 9 of the policy. As far as the insured is concerned he can file the complaint within three years of the date of occurrence causing loss or from the date when the claim on the policy is denied by the insurer. For him time for lodging the complaint would not start

-5-

running while the goods are still in transit as he can claim the policy to be valid till he lodged the complaint.

To the same effect is the judgment of this Commission in “Original Petition No.91 of 1995 Sirpur Paper Mills Limited vs. National Insurance Company Limited decided on 19^th May 1997” in which this Commission has held as under:

    5.       It is an admitted fact that the fire occurred in October, 1986 and the first repudiation had been made on 14^th November, 1986.  However, the Petitioner Company kept on representing against this decision of the Insurance Company.  In fact, the Insurance Company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss of profit under the subject policy who submitted his report on 24^th April, 1989 more than two years later than the repudiation.  It may be mentioned that this surveyor was the same who earlier had assessed the loss of stock on account of fire in the Vanjari Depot and submitted his report on 24^th July, 1987, on the basis of which a sum of Rs.1,83,58,529/- has already been paid to the Petitioner Company.  It may also be noted that the Insurance Company appointed a surveyor much later than the 14^th November, 1986 when they first repudiated the claim of the Petitioner Company.  It is on record and has not been denied that the final repudiation was made on

-6-

25^th August, 1994 when it was conveyed to the Petitioner Company that the Respondent had nothing to do in the matter.  In our view, therefore, the relevant date for the purpose of this dispute is 25.8.1994 when the final repudiation was made after the receipt of the report of the surveyor on the 24th April, 1989.  The reason as to why we have taken into consideration only the final date of repudiation viz., 25.8.1994 as the relevant date for the purpose of considering the question whether the Petition is maintainable, and whether it is barred by limitation either under the Limitation or under the Consumer Protection Act is that there has been a continuing correspondence between the Petitioner Company and the Respondent as regards this claim.  The Insurance Company wrote to the surveyors on April 25, 1989 to know from them the estimated amount of loss at the earliest to them to inform the same to their Regional Office and a copy of this letter was sent to the Petitioner also.  Thereafter, the Respondent wrote a letter to the Petitioner on January 2, 1990 stating that

     “the matter has been referred to our controlling office for their necessary advice and on receipt of their reply, we shall attend to the matter.”

     Again on 18^th January, 1991, another letter was sent by the Insurance Company to the insured stated that

-7-

     “the matter is receiving our active attention and we shall write to you further shortly.”

    On 1^st April, 1991 the Respondent Insurance Company wrote a letter to the Petitioner intimating to them that they need some documents which they are trying to collect and therefore, under the circumstances the matter is getting delayed, and advising the Petitioner to take up the matter with their Secunderabad office.  A similar letter was sent by the Insurance Company on 4.6.1992.  And, finally on 27^th July, 1993 the Insurance Company vide their letter 100200/Fire/Claim/AL/PKM informed the Petitioner that

     “since the Vanjari Depat does not fall within the scope of cover granted under the subject policy, they do not accept their liability in this regard” and then on 25^th August, 1994 the Insurance Company wrote saying that “we have nothing to do in the matter”.

    All this shows that during the period from 1986 to 1994 the matter remained under the consideration of the Insurance Company, that they appointed a surveyor to assess the loss of profit and that they frequently informed the Petitioner that their claim was under consideration.  Therefore, in our view, it is only just and fair that the final date of repudiation viz., 25.8.1994 should be taken as starting point for considering the question of maintainability of this petition before this Commission and of limitation, if

-8-

any.  The petition was filed on 7.6.1995 and therefore is within permissible time from the date final repudiation viz., 25.8.1994 and is also within the jurisdiction of this Commission.”

Respectfully following the law laid down by Supreme Court in G. N. Sainani’s case (supra) and view taken by this Commission in Sirpur Paper Mills Limited’s case (supra), we are of the opinion that the limitation will start running from the date of repudiation and not from the date of the theft.  Till the date of repudiation appellant did not have any cause of action against the respondent.  State Commission has clearly erred in holding that the limitation will start running from the date of theft and not from the date of repudiation of the claim.  Since the order passed by the State Commission runs counter to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and view taken by this Commission, we allow the appeal.  Order of the State Commission is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it on merits in accordance with law taking the complaint to be within time. 

          Parties through their counsel are directed to appear on 27.11.2012.