Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

          None remaining present for the Complainant. Directions dated 11.4.2011 are not complied with.

          We, prima-facie, find that in view of the Apex Court’s decision in the matter of Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. V/s National Insurance Co. and another in Civil Appeal No. 4962 of 2002 decided on 10/07/2009 MANU/SC/1165/2009,  the complaint is barred by limitation since the cause of action arose on the date of  i.e. 27.10.2007.  The consumer complaint is filed on 29.3.2011 with application for condonation of delay.

          Besides this, Opponent No.1 is an official of Insurance Company and thus is a separate and distinct juristic person within the meaning of section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (The Act, for brevity).  He is not a service provider. The Insurance Company which is a service provider is not a party before us.  Opponent No. 2 Company is a loss assessor and sueveyor  engaged on behalf of the Insurance Company.  The Complainant did not hire its services.  Hence, consumer complaint as against Opponent  NO.s 1 and 2 is not tenable.  Coming to the aspect of delay, the duratioin is not at all specified.  No reason for delay is mentioned/given.  Thus, we find that delay is not at all satisfactorily explained. Hence, the order :

                                                O R D E R

          The application for condonation of delay stands dismissed and the  complaint is accordingly not entertained.

 No  order as to costs.