Dated: 17.03.2023

O R D E R

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1. This Appeal filed by Complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, aggrieved by an order dated 30.07.2016, passed in CC/344/2014 by I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (herein after referred as District Forum/Commission and the parties arrayed as in the consumer complaint).

2. Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsels.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Forum below erred in passing the impugned order as complaint is barred by limitation by not considering the facts of the case which is very much arbitrary in nature.  As such sought for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the complaint and direct OP/respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,269/- with interest and further direct to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.  It is to be noted herein that the Forum below after holding enquiry found that the cause of action for filing the complaint starts from 10.05.2010 i.e., when the insurance company denied for honouring the claim of complainants husband. But the complaint is filed on 20.02.2014 i.e., after the gap of more than four years.  Moreover, there is no application filed by complainant/appellant for condoning delay in filing the complaint.  As such the Forum below relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Company v. National Insurance Company and others wherein held –

“……as a matter of law the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaints on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date accrual of cause of action and it behind the said period.  The sufficient cause has been shown and delay condone for the reasons recorded in writing.  In otherwords, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24-A and give effect to it.  If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forums decides the complaints on merits the Forum would be commit and illegality and therefore the aggrieved party would be entitle to such order set aside.”

4. Thus in view of the above legal proposition, this Commission did not find any irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Forum below and the order does not call for an interference of this Commission.  Hence Commission proceed to dismiss the appeal with no order as to cost.

5. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.

Lady Member                       Judicial Member                                      President

*GGH*