JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the parties heard. 2. A theft took place during the night intervening 22/23.6.2003 in the godown of complainant, Biharibandhu Palei. He had obtained insurance policy from Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Puri, Orissa. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company on 26.5.2004. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum in the year 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain the date on which the complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on merits and mentioned as under: “…. It is specifically stated by the complainant that a complaint case was filed before S.D.J.M. Puri against the accused worker Smt. Maiti which is pending. On this submission of the complaint, we are of the opinion that this forum has nothing to do in this regard more particularly regarding theft. All these matters are to be dealt by the competent court having jurisdiction. Therefore, the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent court for adjudication of his dispute….” That order was never challenged. Therefore, it has attained finality. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been pursuing the complaint before the Magistrate. The complainant filed another complaint on the same cause of action between the same parties before the District Forum on 23.12.2009. According to counsel for the petitioner the cause of action is continuing one and the District Forum had given the petitioner liberty to file another case. 4. All these arguments lack conviction. The State Commission has rightly held that this case is barred by principle of res-judicata. Secondly, the State Commission has rightly decided that this case is barred by time. The complaint should have been filed within two years from 26.5.2004 when the claim was repudiated. This case is clearly barred by time as per law laid down by the Apex Court in Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Company vs. National Insurance Company and another (2009) 7 SCC 768. It may also be mentioned that liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the some other forum and not the consumer court. Whether that order is correct or not, we do not want to go into that controversy because of the fact that the order has attained finality. The revision petition is dismissed. | 
