Order No. 04   Date- 08.01.2020

            Today is fixed for hearing Misc. Application dated 16.09.2020 U/s 69 (2) CP Act, 2019 filled by the complainant.

Heard both sides. Perused the impugned application coupled with documents on record.  It is true that complainant purchased the subject policy on  09.02.2016  and submitted prayer for cancellation of policy vide letter dated 10.11.2017. In spite of prayer of the policy holder the OP did not cancel the policy and refund the policy amount for which complainant submitted a prayer before the insurance of Ombudsman and Assistant Secretary of Insurance Ombudsman vide letter dated 15.02.2018 directed the policy holder that he should first represent the case to the grievance cell/legal department of insurance company. Award No. IO/KOL/A/GI/0353/2019-2020 the insurance ombudsman dismissed the claim of the policy holder on 20.03.2020. The cause of action of the instant consumer case arose on 10.11.2017 when the policy holder made a prayer to the OP for cancellation of policy and refund of money but the instant case is filled on 16.09.2020 after a long gap of statutory period of limitation.

Section 69 (2) of the CP, Act 2019 which prescribes the period of limitation for admitting a complaint, reads as under:-

(1) The District Commission, 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 Commission, 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 Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

The provisions of Section 69 (2) of the Act being mandatory and rather peremptory in nature, this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint after expiry of prescribed period of limitation. Admittedly, the complainant has filled and appropriate application for condonation of delay but failed to satisfy it that he has sufficient cause for not to filing the complaint within the prescribed period of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

For the reasons stated herein above, the Misc. Application  is dismissed on contest but  without any cost. Thus, MA being No. 218/2020 is disposed of.

Resultantly, the complaint case is not admitted being barred by limitation.

It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the complaint shall not come in the way of complainant availing such other remedy as may available to him in law.