Date of Hearing:               30-08-2016

Date of Judgment:            18-11-2016

By Mrs. Justice Anima Hazarika, President,

            The seven appeals emanate from seven separate judgments passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as “District Forum, in brief) wherein the learned District Forum has allowed the respective complaint cases. The original complaint Case No., the date of judgment of the Complaint Cases and the Appeal Number before the State Commission are mentioned in the table below: -

2.       The main question which arises for consideration in this batch of appeals is whether the District Forum has rightly passed the impugned judgments allowing the complaint cases holding that the appellant insurance company herein committed inordinate delay in disposing the claims and thereby there was no delay in filing the complaint case and also in holding that the delay committed by the appellants in disposing the claim amounted to grave deficiency in service thereby giving enormous mental harassment and pain to the complainants.

3.       As the facts are almost same in all these appeals, except for some minor variation like the vehicle in question, the date of the accident and compensation claimed, we are of the view that disposing of one of the appeals by discussing its facts and law would be sufficient inasmuch as the same conclusions would ensue for the other appeals also.  However, for the sake of clarity, brief descriptions of the facts of the rest of the cases are also set out in this common judgment. 

4.       Among the batch of the appeals, the first one in chronological order is FA 29/2014 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. -vs- Sri Ranjan Paik). We, therefore, narrate the facts of this case in extenso -

F.A. 29/2014

The complainant (Respondent herein) is a resident of Lahowal in the District of Dibrugarh. He was the owner of a Tata Bus bearing Registration No. ASN-7189  and the same was insured with National Insurance Company Limited, opposite party No. 1 ( appellant herein) under Policy No. 200301/31/63/0033/00267 for the period from 13-04-1998 to 12-04-1999. Authority concerned, on an application submitted by the respondent, granted permit to ply the vehicle as a stage carriage in the Dibrugarh-Athabari-Khowang-Moran-Dhemeshi-Demow-Sibsagar-Disangmukh, which was subsequently extended up to Jagun from Dibrugarh via Mohanbari-Hazulbank-Nadua-Chabua-Panitola-Tinsukia-Makum-Lankashi-Digboi-Ketatong-Margherita -Jagun route. On 16-8-1998 at about 6 P.M. on the National Highway near Dinjan Tea Estate under Chabua Police Station while the bus was proceeding towards Sibsagar from Jagun, a Truck coming from opposite direction, while trying to cross complainant’s bus, the driver of the bus applied brake but could not control due to heavy rain, and the bus was knocked down by the said

Truck causing extensive damage of the bus. Getting information about the accident,  police of Chabua Police Station visited the site of accident, registered a case, seized the vehicle and got it examined by MVI of D.T.O., Dibrugarh and the said MVI after examining the vehicle on 17-08-1998 submitted a report to O.C. Chabua Police Station and police thereafter released the bus of the complainant.

          The complainant after receiving the news about the accident, immediately reported about the same to the opposite party No. 4 ( an Officer of the Appellant Company), over telephone and the opposite party No. 4 (O.P. in short) advised the complainant to send an application stating therein about the accident and accordingly as advised, the complainant sent an application on 18-08-1998 to O.P. No. 4 narrating about the accident and requesting O.P. No. 4 to depute surveyor  at an early date which was duly received by the O.P.,  who put the official seal in the complainant’s copy acknowledging receipt of the same. The further case of the complainant is that M/s United Motor Garage, Pachali, A.T. Road, Dibrugarah Town, repaired the vehicle after making necessary inspection and prepared an estimate of Rs. 75,000/- as labour charge only without mentioning the price of various parts required for fitting/replacement in the vehicle. The said estimate was prepared on 19-08-1998. Thereafter O.P. No. 4 deputed one surveyor who after inspecting the vehicle prepared estimate of expenditure required for repairing the vehicle and the said estimate was submitted on O.P. No. 4. The Appellant thereafter got the vehicle repaired by spending Rs.

94799/- which include the labour charges of Rs. 75,000/- and costs of the damaged parts of the vehicle amounting Rs. 10510/-, Rs. 7845/- and Rs. 1444/- purchased from different stores. The complainant thereafter on 14-10-1999, submitted the original money receipt of the garage, original cash memos, original MVI report, original Police Report, Certificate of Registration, Fitness Certificate, Route Permit, Driving License etc. as well as estimate of expenditure to opposite party praying for releasing the amount at an early date.  The opposite party only made some promise that the amount will be released soon. Despite repeated request made by the complainant for releasing the amount, when the amount was not released, the complainant sent reminders on 05-08-2008 and 19-05-2011 by registered post which were duly received by the opposite party. While the requests so made by the complainant evoked no response from the side of the opposite party and long fourteen years had passed, in the meantime, the complainant, finding no other alternative, approached Insurance Ombudsman at Guwahati by filing complaint which was registered and numbered as 14-003-040/11-The said complaint was disposed by the learned Insurance Ombudsman vide Order dated 06-01-2012 with some observation and direction. Operative portion of the order  is quoted herein below;-

          “After going through the entire documents available on record, it reveals that the claim of the complainant is pending with the insurer since long. It is awarded that the insurer shall reconsider the matter and complete the process of settlement of the claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter or acceptance of the Award from the complainant. The complainant is also asked to send the required documents and his letter of acceptance of the Award to the insurer under intimation to us within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this Award, provided the Award is found acceptable to him. It is made clear that if the claim is payable, the insurer shall be liable to pay penal interest @ 8% per annum on the settled amount with effect from the date of submission of the claim paper till the date on which the settled amount  is released. With this observation, the complaint is treated as closed.”  

The complainant submitted the aforesaid order of Ombudsman dated 6-1-2012 to the Insurance Company on27-1-2012 as well as the opposite party No. 4. Insurance Company after receipt of the order, issued a letter to the complainant asking him to submit some documents viz copy of claim intimation letter duly received by Insurance Comnany, Spot Photograph, if any, repairing estimate of the vehicle, claim form duly completed in all respect, Police Report and MVI Report, photocopy of R/C, Driving License, Permit, Fitness Certificate and Policy copy, cash memo of parts purchased, repairing bill and Money Receipt. Accordingly, the complainant submitted the documents to the Insurance Company on 1-6-2012. However, despite submission of all the documents as well as the copy of the order passed by the learned Ombudsman, the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim. Thus, after waiting for some time and finding no other alternative, the complainant had approached the District Consumer Forum, Dibrugarh by filing a complaint case, which was registered and numbered as CP Case No. 39/2012 on the ground of deficiency in service and causing enormous mental agony and harassment.                                         
          After receipt of notice from the District Forum, the appellant insurer appeared before the District Forum and contested the case by filing a joint written statement,  contending inter-alia that complaint is not maintainable in law and in facts, with further contention that the complaint is barred by limitation as per provision of Section 24 A of the Act, 1986,  inasmuch as, the Complaint Case has been filed after a gap of fourteen years from the date of alleged accident and in the meantime, the Insurance Company has destroyed all the old records which are over eight years old, as per Head Office guidelines. The appellant also contended that the case of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious which has been filed collusively with his brothers for wrongful gain. As the Complaint Case was filed for some stale demand, the case is liable to be dismissed with cost in favour of the Insurance Company under Section 26 of the Act 1986.

          The complainant had adduced one witness and exhibited certain documents. The Insurance Company also adduced one witness and exhibited some documents.

          After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, the District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order dated 01-11-2013 allowing the complaint case with direction to the appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs. 94,799/- being the cost  of repairing the vehicle including the purchase of damaged parts with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claiming the said amount till realization and as the opposite parties have committed inordinate delay in disposing the claim petition of the complainant, thereby committing grave deficiency in service and also for giving enormous mental harassment to the complainant, the opposite parties were ordered to pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation , also further ordered to pay Rs. 5000/- as cost of filing the Complaint Case and directed to pay the aforesaid amounts within one month from the date of judgment.

          Being aggrieved, the appeal being F.A. 29/2014 has been filed by the respondent Insurance Company, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 1-11-2013.

F.A. 67/14

          The complainant (respondent herein), resident of Lahowal, District- Dibrugarh, was the owner of the Bus (TATA) bearing registration No. ASQ-8822. The complainant got the same registered in his name in the Office of the District Transport Officer, Dibrugarh, who issued the certificate of registration in his name. The said vehicle was used as a stage carriage. After purchasing the vehicle, the complainant got the same insured with the opposite party No. 1 (the appellant herein) through the opposite party No. 4 and the opposite parties on receipt of the premium, issued the certificate of insurance bearing No. 200301/31/63/0033 for the period from 31-03-1998 to 30-03-1999. After getting the permission from the authority concerned, the complainant used to ply the same in the Dibrugarh-Athabari-Khowang-Moran-Sepon-Sunpura-Simulguri-Santok-Bihubar route which was subsequently extended upto Jagun via Mohanbari-Hazelbank-Nadua-Chabua-Panitola-Tinsukia-Makum-Digboi-Margherita. On 30-06-1998 at about 9.30 p.m. while the bus was proceeding towards Lahowal from Dibrugarh on the way near Chaulkhowa under Dibrugarh Police Station, the vehicle suddenly knocked one standing truck No. WMK-5649 which had no backlight. As a result, the bus was badly damaged. The Dibrugarh police on getting information of the accident, registered a case and seized the vehicle and got it examined by M.V.I. of the District Transport Office of Dibrugarh and the M.V.I. after examining the vehicle on 01-07-1998 submitted a report to the Officer in-charge of Dibrugarh Police Station on the same day. Later on the vehicle was released by the police. The complainant after coming to know about the accident, informed the opposite party No. 4 (Branch Manager of Insurance Company) over telephone and went to the site of the accident, which was within the jurisdiction of Dibrugarh Police Station. The opposite party No. 4 told the complainant to send an application  to him stating about the accident. In compliance of the instruction so received, on 01-07-1998 the complainant sent an application to him stating about the accident, further requesting to depute one surveyor at an early date. The opposite party received the letter and put the official seal in the complainant’s copy acknowledging receipt of the same. In the meanwhile, the complainant got the necessary repairs of the vehicle through M/s Dashrath Sharma for which he had spent Rs. 73,680/- in total (which include labour charge and motor parts). After getting the bus repaired, the complainant on 15-09-1998 informed the opposite party No. 4 and submitted the original money receipts of garage, original cash memos, copy of report given by M.V.I, original Police Report, Certificate of Registration, Fitness Certificate, Route Permit to the opposite party No. 4. The opposite party No. 4  then kept all the original receipts/documents and gave an understanding to the complainant that his claim is being examined by the authority. Despite repeated request made by the complainant for releasing the amount, when the amount was not released,  the complainant sent  reminders on 05-08-2010 and  19-05-2011 vide registered post which were received by the opposite party. While the request so made by the complainant evoked no response from the side of the opposite party and long fourteen years had already been passed in the meantime, the complainant finding no other alternative approached the Insurance Ombudsman, at Guwahati, against the insurance company which was registered and numbered as Complaint No. 14-003-041/11-12.  The said complaint was disposed of by the learned Insurance Ombudsman vide order dated 18-01-2012 directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the matter and complete the process of settlement within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter of acceptance of the award from the complainant,  (the operative portion of the award is quoted in F.A. 29/2014. The order being exactly same, to avoid repetition, the same is not quoted herein again). The complainant submitted the said award of  Insurance Ombudsman to the Insurance Company on 27-01-2012 and after receipt of the same, the opposite party insurance company issued a letter to the complainant to submit some documents viz copy of claim intimation letter duly received by Insurance Company, Spot photograph, if any, repairing estimate of the vehicle, claim form duly completed in all respect, Police Report, MVI Report, Photocopy of Registration Certificate, Driving License, Permit, Fitness Certificate, Policy Copy, Cash Memo of parts purchased, repairing bill and money receipts.. Accordingly, the complainant handed over the said documents on 15-05-2012, but even then, the insurance company did not settle the claim of the complainant. Hence being aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint case before the District Forum, Dibrugarh which was registered and numbered as CP Case No. 34/2012 on the ground of deficiency in service and causing enormous mental harassment. The District Forum after hearing the parties at length and upon perusal of the materials on record, passed the impugned judgment dated 10-09-2014 allowing the complaint case with direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 73,680/- being the cost of repairing of the complainant’s vehicle including purchasing of damaged parts of the vehicle on the basis of estimate and vouchers issued by the concerned garage and motor parts selling agencies, genuineness of which have not been challenged by the insurance company, with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of claiming the said amount till realization and Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and pain by committing deficiency in service and illegal (sic) trade practise. The opposite parties are further ordered to pay Rs. 4000/- as cost of filing the complaint case, directing that the amount so ordered, shall be paid to the complainant through the District Forum within one month from the date of judgment.

                   Being aggrieved, the appeal being F.A. 67/14 has been filed by the respondent  Insurance Company, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 10-09-2014.

F.A. 68/14

          The complainant (respondent herein), resident of Lahowal, District- Dibrugarh, was the owner of the Bus (TATA) bearing registration No. ASQ-8822. The complainant got the same registered in his name in the Office of the District Transport Officer, Dibrugarh, who issued the certificate of registration in his name. The said vehicle was used as a stage carriage. After purchasing the vehicle, the complainant got the same insured with the opposite party No. 1 (the appellant herein) through the opposite party No. 4 and the opposite parties on receipt of the premium, issued the certificate of insurance bearing No. 1999/6305226(New) for the period from 21-07-1999 to 20-07-2000. After getting the permission from the authority concerned, the complainant used to ply the same in the Dibrugarh-Athabari-Khowang-Moran-Sepon-Sunpura-Simulguri-Santok-Bihubarroute which was subsequently extended upto Jagun via Mohanbari-Hazelbank-Nadua-Chabua-Panitola-Tinsukia-Makum-Digboi-Margherita. On 15-11-1999 at about 2.30 p.m. while the bus was proceeding towards Tinsukia from Jagun on the way near Digboi under Digboi Police Station, suddenly a motorcyclist came in front of the complainant’s bus. The driver of the bus, while trying to save the motorcyclist, could not control the bus and hit an electric post and a house. As a result, the bus was badly damaged. The Digboi police on getting information of the accident, registered a case and seized the vehicle and got it examined by M.V.I. of the District Transport Office of Tinsukia and the M.V.I. after examining the vehicle on 17-11-1999, submitted a report to the Officer in-charge of Digboi Police Station on 22-11-1999. Later on the vehicle was released by the police. The complainant after coming to know about the accident, informed the opposite party No. 4 (Branch Manager of the Insurance Company) over telephone and went to the site of the accident, which was within the jurisdiction of Digboi Police Station. The opposite party No. 4 told the complainant to send an application to him stating about the accident. In compliance of the instruction so received, on 18-11-1999, the complainant sent an application to him stating about the accident, further requesting to depute one surveyor at an early date. The opposite party received the letter and put the official seal in the complainant’s copy acknowledging receipt of the same. In the meanwhile, the complainant took the vehicle for necessary repairs to M/s United Motor Garage, Panch Ali, AT Road, Dibrugarh who prepared an estimate for repairs of the vehicle at Rs. 77,000 only as labour charge, but did not mention the price of the different parts. After getting the estimate from the garage, the complainant submitted a copy thereof to the opposite party no. 4 who thereafter deputed one surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and took some photographs. The complainant thereafter got the vehicle repaired through M/s United Motor Garage spending Rs. 1,27,033.00 in total as well as for labour charge Rs. 76,000 on 10-05-2001. The complainant also purchased some motor parts from Charan Motor Stores on 03-04-2001 of Rs. 3745/-, Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 7,355/- and Rs. 9,500/- on 24-04-2001 from Jai Motor Stores, Rs. 11,433, and Rs. 4,000/- from D.N. Agarwal and Sons. Thereafter, after getting the bus repaired, the complainant on 10-05-2001 submitted to the Insurance Company original money receipt of the garage, original cash memos, original police report, report of MVI, Tinsukia, Certificate of Registration, Fitness Certificate, Route Permit, Driving License. The opposite party No. 4 then kept all the original receipts/documents and gave an understanding to the complainant that his claim is being examined by the authority. Despite repeated request made by the complainant for releasing the amount, when the amount was not released, the complainant sent reminders on 05-08-2010 and 19-05-2011 by registered post which were duly received by the opposite party. While the request so made by the complainant did not evoke any response and long fourteen years passed in the meantime, finding no other alternative, the complainant submitted a petition before the Insurance Ombudsman, Panbazar, Guwahati against the insurance company for delay in settlement of the claim which was registered and numbered as complaint no. 14-003-038/11-12. The learned Ombudsman, after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, passed an order on 18-01-2012 directing the insurance company to complete the process of settlement of the claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter of acceptance of the award from the complainant (the operative portion of the award is quoted in F.A. 29/2014 and thus the same is not quoted herein again for the sake of brevity). The complainant submitted the said award of  Insurance Ombudsman to the Insurance Company on 27-01-2012 and after receipt of the same, the opposite party insurance company issued a letter on 27-01-2012 to the complainant to submit some documents viz copy of claim intimation letter duly received by Insurance Company, Spot photograph, if any, repairing estimate of the vehicle, claim form duly completed in all respect, Police Report, MVI Report, Photocopy of Registration Certificate, Driving License, Permit, Fitness Certificate, Policy Copy, Cash Memo of parts purchased, repairing bill and money receipts. Accordingly, the complainant handed over the said documents on 17-02-2012. However, despite submission of all the documents as well as the copy of the order passed by the learned Ombudsman, the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim. Thus, after waiting for some time and finding no other alternative, the complainant had approached the learned District Forum, Dibrugarh by filing a complaint case, which was registered and numbered as CP Case No. 33/2012 The learned District Forum after hearing the parties at length and upon perusal of the materials on record, passed the impugned judgment dated 10-09-2014 allowing the complaint case with direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,27,033/- being the cost of repairing of the complainant’s vehicle including purchasing of damaged parts of the vehicle on the basis of estimate and vouchers issued by the concerned garage and motor parts selling agencies, genuineness of which have not been challenged by the insurance company, with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of claiming the said amount till realization and Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and pain by committing deficiency in service and illegal (sic) trade practice. The opposite parties were further ordered to pay Rs. 4000/- as cost of filing the complaint case, directing that the amount so ordered, shall be paid to the complainant through the District Forum within one month from the date of judgment.

          Being aggrieved, the appeal being F.A. 68/14 has been filed by the respondent Insurance Company, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 10-09-2014.

F.A. 69/14

                        The complainant (respondent herein), resident of Lahowal, District- Dibrugarh, was the owner of the Bus (TATA) bearing registration No. ASQ-8822. The complainant got the same registered in his name in the Office of the District Transport Officer, Dibrugarh, who issued the certificate of registration in his name. The said vehicle was used as a stage carriage. After purchasing the vehicle, the complainant got the same insured with the opposite party No. 1 (the appellant herein) through the opposite party No. 4 and the opposite parties on receipt of the premium, issued the certificate of insurance bearing No. 200301/31/63/0033/07254 for the period from 31-03-1997 to 30-03-1998. After getting the permission from the authority concerned, the complainant used to ply the same in the Dibrugarh-Athabari-Khowang-Moran-Sepon-Sunpura-Simulguri-Santok-Bihubar route which was subsequently extended upto Jagun via Mohanbari-Hazelbank-Nadua-Chabua-Panitola-Tinsukia-Makum-Digboi-Margherita. On 15-07-1997 at about 4.30 p.m. while the bus was proceeding towards Dibrugarh from Bihubar, on the way near Demow  under Dimow Police Station, Sibsagar, suddenly a cow came in front of the complainant’s bus. The driver of the bus somehow saved the cow, but could not control and hit a roadside tree. As a result, the bus was badly damaged. The police from Demow Police Station on getting information about the accident, registered a case and seized the vehicle and got it examined by M.V.I. of the District Transport Office of Sibsagar and the M.V.I. after examining the vehicle on 17-07-1997 submitted a report to the Officer in-charge of Demow Police Station on the same day. Later on the vehicle was released by the police. The complainant after coming to know about the accident, informed the opposite party No. 4 (Branch Manager of Insurance Company) over telephone and went to the site of the accident, which was within the jurisdiction of Demow Police Station. The opposite party No. 4 told the complainant to send an application  to him stating about the accident. In compliance of the instruction so received, on 16-07-1997 the complainant sent an application to him stating about the accident, further requesting to depute one surveyor at an early date. The opposite party received the letter and put the official seal in the complainant’s copy acknowledging receipt of the same. In the meanwhile, the complainant took the vehicle to the workshop of M/s United Motor Garage, Pach Ali, A.T. Road for necessary repairs, wherein the garage authority after necessary inspection, prepared an estimate for repairs on 18-07-1997, quoting only the labour charge as Rs. 22,000/-, but did not mention about the price of the different parts required for repairing of the vehicle. The complainant thereafter paid Rs. 40,805/- to the garage in total, i.e. labour charge and price of the different parts.

After getting the bus repaired, the complainant on 24-08-1997 informed the opposite party No. 4 and submitted the original money receipts of garage, original cash memos, copy of report given by M.V.I, original Police Report, Certificate of Registration, Fitness Certificate, Route Permit, Driving License to the opposite party No. 4. The opposite party No. 4  deputed one surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and took some photographs. The opposite party No. 4 also kept all the original receipts/documents and gave an understanding to the complainant that his claim is being examined by the authority. Despite repeated request made by the complainant for releasing the amount, when the amount was not released, the complainant sent  reminders on 05-08-2010 and  19-05-2011 vide registered post which were received by the opposite party No. 4 but only verbally gave assurance to settle the claim as soon as possible.   

While the request so made by the complainant did not evoke any response and long fourteen years passed in the meantime, findings no other alternative, the complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman, at Guwahati, against the insurance company for delay in settling the claim, which was registered and numbered as Complaint No. 14-003-042/11-12.  The learned Ombudsman after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, passed an order on 09-01-2012 directing Insurance Company to reconsider the matter and complete the process of settlement within 15 days  from the date of receipt of the letter of acceptance of the award from the complainant (The operative portion of the award is quoted in F.A. 29/2014. The order being exactly same, to avoid repetition, the same is not quoted herein again). The complainant submitted the said award of  Insurance Ombudsman to the Insurance Company on 29-02-2012. But even after receipt of the aforesaid award, the Insurance Company did not settle the claim of the complainant.  Hence, being aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint case before the District Forum, Dibrugarh which was registered and numbered as C.P. Case No. 35/2012 on the ground of deficiency in service and causing enormous mental agony and harassment.

                        After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, the District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order dated 10-09-2014 allowing the complaint case with direction to the appellant company to pay Rs. 40,805/- being the cost of repairing of the vehicle including the purchase of damaged parts with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of claiming the said amount till realisation and as the opposite parties have committed inordinate delay in disposing the claim petition of the complainant and thereby causing deficiency in service and giving enormous mental harassment and pair, so ordered to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and also ordered to pay Rs. 4000/- as cost of filing the complaint case, further directed to pay the aforesaid amount through the Forum within one month from the date of judgment.

Being aggrieved, the appeal being F.A. 69/14 has been filed by the respondent  Insurance Company, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 10-09-2014.

F.A. 70/14

      The complainant (respondent herein), resident of Lahowal, District- Dibrugarh, was the owner of the Bus (TATA) bearing registration No.  AMB-218. The complainant got the same registered in his name in the Office of the District Transport Officer, Dibrugarh, who issued the certificate of registration in his name. The said vehicle was used as a stage carriage. After purchasing the vehicle, the complainant got the same insured with the opposite party No. 1 (the appellant herein) through the opposite party No. 4 and the opposite parties on receipt of the premium, issued the certificate of insurance bearing No. 200301/63/00/33/05392(R) for the period from 07-12-1996 to 06-12-1997. After getting the permission from the authority concerned, the complainant used to ply the same in the Dibrugarh-Mohanbari-Hazelbank-Badua-Tinsukia-Dhelakhat-Makum-Lankashi-Digboi-Ketetong-Mergherita-Jagun route. On 30-06-1997 at about 1 AM (mid night) while the bus was parked at National Highway-37, it was knocked by one coal loaded truck, which was coming from Margherita to Dibrugarh side . As a result, the bus was badly damaged. The Lahowal police on getting information of the accident, registered a case and seized the vehicle and got it examined by M.V.I. of the District Transport Office of Dibrugarh and the M.V.I. after examining the vehicle on 30-06-1997, submitted a report to the Officer in-charge of Lahowal Police Station on 17-07-1997. Later on the vehicle was released by the police. The complainant after coming to know about the accident, informed the opposite party No. 4 (Branch Manager of the Insurance Company) over telephone and went to the site of the accident, which was within the jurisdiction of Lahowal Police Station. The opposite party No. 4 told the complainant to send an application to him stating about the accident. In the meanwhile, the complainant took the vehicle for necessary repairs to M/s Sparlink Industries Amolapatty, A.T. Road, Dibrugarh who prepared an estimate for repairs of the vehicle at Rs. 1,29,000/-  only as labour charge, but did not mention the price of the different parts. After getting the estimate from the garage, the complainant submitted a copy thereof to the opposite party no. 4 who thereafter deputed one surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and took some photographs. The complainant thereafter got the vehicle repaired through M/s Sparlink Industries spending Rs. 1,48,754.00 in total as well as for labour charge Rs. 1,20,000.00  on 8-10-1997. The complainant also purchased some motor parts from Charan Motor Stores on 24-08-1997 of Rs. 5,110/-, Rs. 10,165/-, Rs. 11,479/- from D.N. Agarwal & Sons for glass on 28-08-1997 and spent Rs. 2000/- towing charges from Lahowal to Dibrugarh. Thereafter, after getting the bus repaired, the complainant on 08-10-1997 submitted to the Insurance Company original money receipt of the garage, original cash memos, original police report, report of MVI, Certificate of Registration, Fitness Certificate, Route Permit, Driving License. The opposite party No. 4 then kept all the original receipts/documents and gave an understanding to the complainant that his claim is being examined by the authority. The opposite party thereafter deputed one surveyor to inspect the vehicle again and the surveyor as per direction, surveyed the repaired bus. But the Insurance Company did not make any payment even thereafter. Despite repeated request made by the complainant for releasing the amount, when the amount was not released, the complainant sent reminders on 05-08-2010 and 19-05-2011 by registered post which were duly received by the opposite party. While the request so made by the complainant did not evoke any response and long fourteen years passed in the meantime, finding no other alternative, the complainant submitted a petition before the Insurance Ombudsman, Panbazar, Guwahati against the insurance company for delay in settlement of the claim which was registered and numbered as complaint no. 14-003-039/11-12. The learned Ombudsman, after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, passed an order on 06-01-2012 directing the insurance company to complete the process of settlement of the claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter of acceptance of the award from the complainant (the operative portion of the award is quoted in F.A. 29/2014 and thus the same is not quoted herein again for the sake of brevity). The complainant submitted the said award of  Insurance Ombudsman to the Insurance Company on 25-01-2012 and after receipt of the same, the opposite party insurance company issued a letter on 27-01-2012 to the complainant to submit some documents viz copy of claim intimation letter duly received by Insurance Company, Spot photograph, if any, repairing estimate of the vehicle, claim form duly completed in all respect, Police Report, MVI Report, Photocopy of Registration Certificate, Driving License, Permit, Fitness Certificate, Policy Copy, Cash Memo of parts purchased, repairing bill and money receipts. Accordingly, the complainant handed over the said documents on 24-02-2012 and again visited the office of the Insurance Company on 11-04-2012 requesting for early selttlement of the claim. However, despite submission of all the documents as well as the copy of the order passed by the learned Ombudsman, the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim. Thus, after waiting for some time and finding no other alternative, the complainant had approached the learned District Forum, Dibrugarh by filing a complaint case, which was registered and numbered as CP Case No. 36/2012 The learned District Forum after hearing the parties at length and upon perusal of the materials on record, passed the impugned judgment dated 10-09-2014 allowing the complaint case with direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,48,754/- being the cost of repairing of the complainant’s vehicle including purchasing of damaged parts of the vehicle on the basis of estimate and vouchers issued by the concerned garage and motor parts selling agencies, genuineness of which have not been challenged by the insurance company, with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of claiming the said amount till realization and Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and pain by committing deficiency in service and illegal (sic) trade practice. The opposite parties were further ordered to pay Rs. 4000/- as cost of filing the complaint case, directing that the amount so ordered, shall be paid to the complainant through the District Forum within one month from the date of judgment.

      Being aggrieved, the appeal being F.A. 70/14 has been filed by the respondent Insurance Company, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 10-09-2014.

F.A. 71/2014

          The complainant (respondent herein), resident of Lahowal, District- Dibrugarh, was the owner of the Bus (TATA) bearing registration No. AMB-218. The complainant got the same registered in his name in the Office of the District Transport Officer, Dibrugarh, who issued the certificate of registration in his name. The said vehicle was used as a stage carriage. After purchasing the vehicle, the complainant got the same insured with the opposite party No. 1 (the appellant herein) through the opposite party No. 4 and the opposite parties on receipt of the premium, issued the certificate of insurance bearing No. 200301/0033/6302644 for the period from 30-12-1998 to 29-12-1999. After getting the permission from the authority concerned, the complainant used to ply the same in the Dibrugarh-Mohanbari-Hazalbank-Nadua-Tinsukia-Dhelakhat-Makum-Lankashi-Digboi-Kettong-Mergherita-Jagun route. On 15-9-1999 at about 12.30 p.m. while the bus was proceeding towards Dibrugarh with passengers from Tinsukia, a truck, bearing No. AS01/6512 going opposite direction suddenly came in front of the complainant’s bus (wrong side). The driver of the bus, while trying to save it from head in collusion with the truck,  could not control the bus and hit the No. 8 Railway Post and as a result, the bus was badly damaged. The G.R.P. Tinsukia Railway Police after getting information of the accident, registered a case and seized the vehicle and got it examined by Foreman, ASTC, Tinsukia and the Foreman after examining the vehicle, submitted a report to the Officer in-charge of G.R.P., Tinsukia. Later on the vehicle was released by the police. The complainant after coming to know about the accident, informed the opposite party No. 4 (Branch Manager of the Insurance Company) over telephone and went to the site of the accident, which was within the jurisdiction of Tinsukia Police Station. The opposite party No. 4 told the complainant to send an application to him stating about the accident. In compliance of the instruction so received, on 16-09-1999, the complainant sent an application to him stating about the accident, further requesting to depute one surveyor at an early date. The opposite party received the letter and put the official seal in the complainant’s copy acknowledging receipt of the same. In the meanwhile, the complainant took the vehicle for necessary repairs to M/s United Motor Garage, Panch Ali, AT Road, Dibrugarh who prepared an estimate for repairs of the vehicle at Rs. 46,000/- only as labour charge, but did not mention the price of the different parts. After getting the estimate from the garage, the complainant submitted a copy thereof to the opposite party no. 4 who thereafter deputed one surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and took some photographs. The complainant thereafter got the vehicle repaired through M/s United Motor Garage spending Rs. 68,905/- in total as well as for labour charge Rs. 45,000/-. The complainant also purchased some motor parts from Charan Motor Stores on 16-11-1999  of Rs. 3040/-, Rs. 2020/-, Rs. 2915/- and Rs. 11430/- on 28-10-1999 from D.N. Agarwal & Sons for glass and spent Rs. 4,500/- towing charges from GRP, Tinsukia to Dibrugarh on 15-09-1999 . Thereafter, after getting the bus repaired, the complainant on 18-12-1999 submitted to the Insurance Company original money receipt of the garage, original cash memos, original police report Certificate of Registration, Fitness Certificate, Route Permit, Driving License. The opposite party No. 4 then kept all the original receipts/documents and gave an understanding to the complainant that his claim is being examined by the authority. However, no money was paid, neither the authority settled the claim. Despite repeated request made by the complainant for releasing the amount, when the amount was not released, the complainant sent reminders on 05-08-2010 and 19-05-2011 by registered post which were duly received by the opposite party. While the request so made by the complainant did not evoke any response and long fourteen years passed in the meantime, finding no other alternative, the complainant submitted a petition before the Insurance Ombudsman, Panbazar, Guwahati against the insurance company for delay in settlement of the claim which was registered and numbered as complaint no. 14-003-037/11-12. The learned Ombudsman, after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, passed an order on 06-01-2012 directing the insurance company to complete the process of settlement of the claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter of acceptance of the award from the complainant (the operative portion of the award is quoted in F.A. 29/2014 and thus the same is not quoted herein again for the sake of brevity). The complainant submitted the said award of  Insurance Ombudsman to the Insurance Company on 30-01-2012 and after receipt of the same, the opposite party insurance company issued a letter on 07-03-2012 to the complainant to submit some documents viz copy of claim intimation letter duly received by Insurance Company, Spot photograph, if any, repairing estimate of the vehicle, claim form duly completed in all respect, Police Report, MVI Report, Photocopy of Registration Certificate, Driving License, Permit, Fitness Certificate, Policy Copy, Cash Memo of parts purchased, repairing bill and money receipts. Accordingly, the complainant handed over the said documents on 27-04-2012. However, despite submission of all the documents as well as the copy of the order passed by the learned Ombudsman, the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim. Thus, after waiting for some time and finding no other alternative, the complainant had approached the learned District Forum, Dibrugarh by filing a complaint case, which was registered and numbered as CP Case No. 37/2012 The learned District Forum after hearing the parties at length and upon perusal of the materials on record, passed the impugned judgment dated 10-09-2014 allowing the complaint case with direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 68,905/- being the cost of repairing of the complainant’s vehicle including purchasing of damaged parts of the vehicle on the basis of estimate and vouchers issued by the concerned garage and motor parts selling agencies, genuineness of which have not been challenged by the insurance company, with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of claiming the said amount till realization and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and pain by committing deficiency in service and illegal (sic) trade practice. The opposite parties were further ordered to pay Rs. 4000/- as cost of filing the complaint case, directing that the amount so ordered, shall be paid to the complainant through the District Forum within one month from the date of judgment.

          Being aggrieved, the appeal being F.A. 71/14 has been filed by the respondent Insurance Company, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 10-09-2014.

F.A. 72/2014

          The complainant (respondent herein), resident of Lahowal, District- Dibrugarh, was the owner of the Bus (TATA) bearing registration No. AMB-218. The complainant got the same registered in his name in the Office of the District Transport Officer, Dibrugarh, who issued the certificate of registration in his name. The said vehicle was used as a stage carriage. After purchasing the vehicle, the complainant got the same insured with the opposite party No. 1 (the appellant herein) through the opposite party No. 4 and the opposite parties on receipt of the premium, issued the certificate of insurance bearing No. 200301/31/63/0033/05392 (R) for the period from 07-12-1997 to 06-12-1998. After getting the permission from the authority concerned, the complainant used to ply the same in the Dibrugarh-Mohanbari-Hazelbank-Ndua-Tinsukia-Dhelakhat-Makum,-lankashi-Bhadoi-Digboi-Ketetong-Margherita-Jagun route. On 25-07-1998 at about 10.45 AM, while the bus was proceeding towards Jagun from Dibrugarh suddenly a bus bearing No. AS01/C-4528 stopped in front of the complainant’s bus to save a cow. The driver of the complainant’s bus applied the brake, but it could not control the bus and dashed back side of the other bus. As a result, the bus was badly damaged. The Digboi police on getting information of the accident, registered a case and seized the vehicle and got it examined by M.V.I. of the District Transport Office of Tinsukia and the M.V.I. after examining the vehicle on 26-07-1998, submitted a report to the Officer in-charge of Digboi Police Station on 27-07-1998. Later on the vehicle was released by the police. The complainant after coming to know about the accident, informed the opposite party No. 4 (Branch Manager of the Insurance Company) over telephone and went to the site of the accident, which was within the jurisdiction of Digboi Police Station. The opposite party No. 4 told the complainant to send an application to him stating about the accident. In compliance of the instruction so received, on 28-07-1998, the complainant sent an application to him stating about the accident, further requesting to depute one surveyor at an early date. The opposite party received the letter and put the official seal in the complainant’s copy acknowledging receipt of the same. In the meanwhile, the complainant took the vehicle for necessary repairs to the Worship of M/s Sandip Body Repairing Works, Panch Ali, AT Road, Dibrugarh who prepared an estimate for repairs of the vehicle at Rs. 50,900/- only as labour charge, but did not mention the price of the different parts. After getting the estimate from the garage, the complainant submitted a copy thereof to the opposite party no. 4 who thereafter deputed one surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and took some photographs. The complainant thereafter got the vehicle repaired through M/s Sandip Body Repairing Works spending Rs. 95,726/-   in total as well as for labour charge Rs. 48000/- on 10-09-1998. The complainant also purchased some motor parts from Charan Motor Stores on 25-08-1998 of Rs. 10,150/-, Rs. 3735/-, Rs. 2387/- and Rs. 1720/- , Rs. 10,065/-, Rs. 4775/-, Rs. 11894/- and Rs. 3000/- as towing charges from Digboi Police Station to Dibrugarh by crane No. ASQ-9691. Thereafter, after getting the bus repaired, the complainant on 10-09-1998 submitted to the Insurance Company original money receipt of the garage, original cash memos, original police report, report of MVI, Certificate of Registration, Fitness Certificate, Route Permit, Driving License. The opposite party No. 4 then kept all the original receipts/documents and gave an understanding to the complainant that his claim is being examined by the authority. The opposite party thereafter sent another Surveyor to inspect the vehicle, who inspected the vehicle again as per direction. But the Insurance Company even thereafter did not settle the claim. Despite repeated request made by the complainant for releasing the amount, when the amount was not released, the complainant sent reminders on 05-08-2010 and 19-05-2011 by registered post which were duly received by the opposite party. While the request so made by the complainant did not evoke any response and long fourteen years passed in the meantime, finding no other alternative, the complainant submitted a petition before the Insurance Ombudsman, Panbazar, Guwahati against the insurance company for delay in settlement of the claim which was registered and numbered as complaint no. 14-003-037/11-12. The learned Ombudsman, after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, passed an order on 06-01-2012 directing the insurance company to complete the process of settlement of the claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter of acceptance of the award from the complainant (the operative portion of the award is quoted in F.A. 29/2014 and thus the same is not quoted herein again for the sake of brevity). The complainant submitted the said award of  Insurance Ombudsman to the Insurance Company on 27-01-2012 and after receipt of the same, the opposite party insurance company issued a letter on 27-01-2012 to the complainant to submit some documents viz copy of claim intimation letter duly received by Insurance Company, Spot photograph, if any, repairing estimate of the vehicle, claim form duly completed in all respect, Police Report, MVI Report, Photocopy of Registration Certificate, Driving License, Permit, Fitness Certificate, Policy Copy, Cash Memo of parts purchased, repairing bill and money receipts. Accordingly, the complainant handed over the said documents on 17-02-2012. However, despite submission of all the documents as well as the copy of the order passed by the learned Ombudsman, the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim. Thus, after waiting for some time and finding no other alternative, the complainant had approached the learned District Forum, Dibrugarh by filing a complaint case, which was registered and numbered as CP Case No. 38/2012 The learned District Forum after hearing the parties at length and upon perusal of the materials on record, passed the impugned judgment dated 10-09-2014 allowing the complaint case with direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 95,726/- being the cost of repairing of the complainant’s vehicle including purchasing of damaged parts of the vehicle on the basis of estimate and vouchers issued by the concerned garage and motor parts selling agencies, genuineness of which have not been challenged by the insurance company, with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of claiming the said amount till realization and Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and pain by committing deficiency in service and illegal (sic) trade practice. The opposite parties were further ordered to pay Rs. 4000/- as cost of filing the complaint case, directing that the amount so ordered, shall be paid to the complainant through the District Forum within one month from the date of judgment.

          Being aggrieved, the appeal being F.A. 72/14 has been filed by the respondent Insurance Company, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 10-09-2014.

F.A. 70, 71,& 72/2014

5.       It is an admitted fact that the registered owner (Anjan Paik) had passed away on 7-11-2014 and vide order dated 26-2-2015 by this Commission, legal heirs, viz Mrs. Maya Paik (wife of the deceased), and six daughters viz, Deepsikha Paik Mazumdar, Deepmala Paik Bhowmik, Deepanjana Paik,  Dipika Paik, Runa Paik, Tanisha Paik have been brought on record as respondents in place of the deceased respondent late Anjan Paik.

6.       Challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgments passed by the District Forum, the appellant insurance company has filed these batch of appeals mainly on the ground that the complaints were barred by limitation as the complaints ought to have been filed within two years from the date of cause of action.

7.       We have heard Mr. B.K.Purkayastha, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

8.       In regard to the appeal taken up for elaborate discussion i.e. FA no. 29 of 2014, Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant would urge that the vehicle having registration No. ASN-7189 owned by the complainant/respondent stated to have met with an accident on 16-8-1998 but the complaint was filed before the District Forum, Dibrugarh in November, 2012 i.e. almost after fourteen years and therefore the complaint is barred by limitation under section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. But the learned District Forum failed to appreciate this point of law raised by the appellant in their written statement and also in the evidence of D.W. No. 1.On the other hand, no delay condonation petition was filed by the respondent before the District Forum. The complaint, being barred by limitation under section 24(A) of the Act, 1986, the impugned judgment dated 1-11-2013, is perverse and not passed in accordance with law and the same is liable to be dismissed and quashed by holding that the complaint is barred by limitation.

9.       In support of his argument on the point of limitation, learned counsel has referred and relied upon the following decisions:

(i) AIR 2009 SC 2210 (I) State Bank of India Vs M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries

(ii) (2009) 7 SCC 768 Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. Vs National Insurance Co. and Anr.

10.    The learned counsel would further urge that the complainant/respondent did not prove his case by producing and proving any original documents in his evidence and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Purkayastha has also contended that it was only after the complainant came to learn about destruction of record which are more than eight years old by the appellant company as per guideline, the complainant taking advantage, filed the present complaint for illegal gains. The other seven complaints have been filed by the complainant and his two brothers, including the present case, in the year, 2012 itself. 

11.    Referring the above contention, the learned counsel would submit that the learned District Forum had failed to appreciate the evidence of the opposite party and instead of dismissing the complaint, allowed the complaint in all the seven complaints. Thus, the findings of the District Forum are perverse and are liable to be set-aside.

12.    In the case of SBI (Supra), while allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that when the complaint is barred by time, the same is liable to the dismissed, In the Case of K. Raghavaiya (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 24(A) bars any fora set up under the Act, 1986, from admitting a complaint, unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which cause of action has arisen. The provision expressly cast a duty on the Commission admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date of cause of action.

13.    Per contra, Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent while supporting his case, has urged that it is the duty of the insurance company that they ought to have settled the claim if the same has been filed. But they have failed to do so and have denied the claim by asking for original documents, when the documents were already submitted before them during the submission of the claim which is the mandatory rule of the insurance company. Stalling the claim and not taking action as to allow/repudiate/reject does not give the appellant a right to take a plea of limitation as they have never expressly denied that the policies were not to be settled until submission of the documents as per order of the Ombudsman.

14.    The second contention raised by Mr. Deka is that the cause of action though is not defined, even occurrence of which gives a right to a party to sue the other party. In the instant case, the cause of action arose only after implied denial of the appellant to honour the claim which was filed in time. The implied denial was only in the year 2012 and the complaints were filed within two years.

15.    Referring to clause 44 (b) to the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963,  Mr. Deka contended that the same clearly states when the period of limitation starts in the case of insurance contract. The clause 44 (b) being relevant, is quoted here-in-below:

“Clause 44(b): The date of the occurrence causing the loss, or where the claim on the policy is denied, either partly or wholly, the date of such denial.”

16.    The learned counsel has submitted that a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the limitation starts in two different occasions. The instant case is covered by the second part i.e. when the case is denied by the appellant. The claim was denied only in the year, 2012 and therefore, the complaint was filed within the period of limitation.

17.    Regarding  K. Raghavaiya (Supra) case, relied by the appellant, learned counsel would submit that it does no cover the facts and circumstances of the instant case and therefore the same has no relevance to the present case. In the said case, the appellant slept over his right to file a claim of insurance company for about four years and thereafter when the claim forms were not allowed, the appellant filed the complaint, which thus, held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as beyond the period of limitation as stated in Section 24(A) and therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court had rightly held that the complaint was beyond time, whereas, if ratio of the aforesaid case has to be applied in the instant case, it will give a huge scope of arbitrariness to the companies of the nature of the appellant. Assuming that the ratio applies and that cause of action arises on the date of occurrence of loss and the insured filed his claim but the insurance company failed to settle the said claim within two years from the date of loss, then the insured will be barred from exercising his right to agitate his grievances which will amount to reducing the scope of the Act, 1986 . 

18.    Regarding cause of action, learned counsel would submit that the cause of action arose only after implied denial of the appellant to honour the claim of the respondent which were filed in time. In the instant case, the implied denial was only in the year, 2012 and the complaint was filed within two years, meaning thereby that there was not delay in filing the complaint which has rightly been held by the District Forum that when the case was filed within time, the cause of delay does not arise. Mr. Deka would thus, submit that the learned District Forum rightly observed that appellant herein committed inordinate delay in disposing the claim and thereby committing grave deficiency in service which amount to illegal (sic) trade practice and thus, giving enormous mental harassment to the complainant, hence Mr. Deka, would submit that in the above backdrop, the appeal(s) be dismissed with cost by further directing the appellant to comply with the judgment of the District Forum for the ends of justice.

19.    Heard the rival submissions. Perused the records. The entire issue in the present appeals can be distilled to one simple question: whether the insured bus having met with an accident in 1998-1999, the filing of the complaint petition before the learned District Forum only in November 2012 is barred by limitation ? The Act, 1986 provides a limitation period of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. So, obviously, there is a delay and no condonation petition had also been filed by the complainant along with the complaint petition before the learned District Forum. So, the only way the petition can be saved is if the complainant had a continuous cause of action as provided by section 22 of the Limitation Act. In this regard it has to be noted that the insurance company sat over the claim of the complainant from 1998 to 2012. They neither accepted the insurance claim of the complainant nor repudiated such claim. In effect, they left the complainant hanging in suspense. In this regard it would be apposite to refer to a recent decision of the Hon'ble National Commission where the material facts are similar to the instant case. Thus, in Devender Singh -vs- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. decided by the National Commission on 19 September, 2013 reported in 2013 (4) CLT 293(NC), the facts were that an insured truck was stolen on 03.05.2008 but the insurance company failed to settle the claim. The complainant in that case was compelled to approach the District Forum, Sonepat (Haryana) which gave relief to the complainant. But the Hon'ble State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant as barred by limitation. On a revision petition filed by the complainant before the  National Commission, the National Commission while discussing the case of Kamdimalla (Supra) and State Bank of India Vs B.S. (Supra) allowed the revision petition with the relevant observations made at paragraph 9 which is quoted hereunder;-

9. “The Supreme Court in the above noted judgment has interpreted the scope of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. There can be no dispute regarding the legal position enumerated in the above judgment. The import of the said judgment is that a consumer complaint should be filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. Thus, the crucial issue in this revision petition is as to when the cause of action has accrued. Admittedly, this is a case of insurance claim which was still under consideration of the insurance company. Therefore, till the insurance company had taken the decision on the complaint, the cause of action for filing the complaint continued. Therefore, in our considered view the State Commission has committed a grave error in holding that the complaint was barred by limitation. As such, the impugned order cannot be sustained”.

20.    Thus it is clear that the National Commission while dealing with a similar case has held non-repudiation of an insurance claim to be a continuous cause of action. Under such circumstances, this Commission is also bound to hold that since the appellant insurance company herein had not repudiated the claim of the complainant-respondent, therefore this is a case of continuous cause of action and as such the question of delay does not arise in the instant case and the complaint petition is not barred under section 24-A of the Act, 1986.

21.    In this regard, it also has to be noted that the appellant insurance company sat over the insurance claim of the complainant for a very long time and did not settle the claim either by accepting it or by repudiating it for a very long period and now an attempt has been made to use this delay as a ground to deny relief to the complainant. This does not strike us as a very just action for a responsible public sector entity like the appellant. The appellant cannot take advantage of its own wrong. Just for the sake of argument, even if we are to assume hypothetically that the complainant sat over the matter and did not take proper action, that does not excuse the behaviour of the appellant insurance company. If the complainant was indeed at fault for any reason whatsoever, it was well within the rights of the appellant insurance company to repudiate the claim of the complainant by pointing out the grounds for repudiation to the complainant but even this was not done and surprisingly the appellant instead chose to simply do nothing. This does not reflect well on the professionalism of the appellant insurance company.  

22.    Lastly, the appellant insurance company has claimed that the complainants deliberately approached the learned District Forum belatedly knowing fully well that the appellant has a policy of destroying old documents after 8 years. However this argument is not at all sustainable because Exhibit –I (exhibited by the appellant company) would show that though the appellant has a policy of destroying old documents after 8 years, but the same does not hold true for matters which have not been settled.

23.    In light of the discussion above, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal of the appellant insurance company in FA no. 29 of 2014 which we hereby do. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed. For the very reasons discussed above, the other appeals too hereby stand dismissed. Needless to say that the stay order passed earlier in all these appeals stand vacated.

24.    Statutory amount deposited by the appellants shall be returned to the appellants or their authorised agents.

25.    No order as to costs.

26.    Send down the original records to the District Forum along with a copy of this judgment.