1. Heard both sides. 2. The Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 05.01.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), vide which the Order dated 04.02.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (West), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the District Commission for hearing afresh, ignoring the point of delay. 3. In this Case, the claim has been repudiated by the Petitioner/Insurance Company vide letter dated 31.03.2014 on the ground of delay. The reasons stated in the repudiation letter are reproduced below: “The Competent Authority has carefully gone through your claim in view of the terms & conditions of the policy and also given thoughtful consideration in light of the documents filed by you. That your claim is barred by the law of limitations as your claim falls under the exceptions of the conditions in para 1 of the terms and conditions of the policy, and the same is reproduced herein: “Upon the happening of any event which may give rise to claim under the Policy, written notice with full particulars must be given to the company immediately in case of Death written notice also of the death must unless reasonable cause is shown, be so given before internment cremation and in any case, within one calendar months after the death. In the event of loss of sight or amputation of limbs written notice thereof must also be given within one calendar month, after such a loss of sight or amputation” In view of the said averments, your claim is barred by the law of limitation and as per terms & conditions of the policy. Your claim is repudiated accordingly.” 4. It is seen that in the instant Case, the accident happened on 05.03.2009 while the intimation was sent to the Insurance Company on 23.03.2009 (as mentioned in the Order of the State Commission) and to the Police on 30.10.2009. Hence, as far as the intimation to the Insurer Company is concerned, it was within 17 days, i.e. well within the period of one month as mentioned in the repudiation letter, reproduced above. Hence, there was no delay in intimation to the Insurance Company. 5. The Insurance Company also contended that there was six years’ delay in filing the Complaint from the date of the accident. However, we find that the repudiation letter is dated 31.03.2014 and the Complaint was filed on 13.06.2015, which is well within the limitation period as the cause of action arises when the claim was repudiated on 31.03.2014. 6. As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269] the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577] held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely, when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity”. On carefully going through the Order of the State Commission, we find that it is a well-reasoned order. We find no infirmity or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission 7. Accordingly, the order of the State Commission is upheld. The matter will stand remanded to the District Commission for hearing afresh on merits, as ordered by the State Commission. The District Commission may dispose of the matter within four months from the date of this Order. The Petitioner/Insurance Company shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent within four weeks from today. | 
