Delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

        During validity of a ‘deterioration of stock in cold storage’ policy obtained by the complainant/appellant from the respondent insurance company with assured sum of Rs.4,09,58,190/-, the bunker coil (pipe) in chamber of one of the said cold storages busted thereby spreading Ammonia gas due to which the stocked potatoes got totally damaged.  Appellant lodged claim of Rs.72,13,203/- which was repudiated by the respondent on 26.8.2005.  Appellant, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission in the year 2009 along with an application to condone the delay.

        State Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.  State Commission in its order has given the following finding :

“In the case in hand, it is evident from the facts that the complainant was not at all diligent.  He approached the Grievance Cell of the Regulatory Authority without approaching the Regulatory Authority itself first against rejection of is claim.  Long after rejection of the claim the complainant approached the insurance Ombudsman on 28^th December 2005 who expressed its inability to entertain the claim by its letter dated 17^th January 2006.  His insurance claim was rejected by the insurer long before on 26^th August 2005.  There was no occasion for the complainant to approach the Chairman-cum Managing Director to intervene into the matter at this stage so as to cancel the repudiation the claim made by the insurer.  Most surprisingly, the Chairman-cum Managing Director of the insurance company was thus approached on 29^th April 2006 when the insurance Ombudsman expressed its inability to entertain the claim by a letter dated 17^th January 2006.  No explanation has been given why the complainant took time for three months to approach the Chairman-cum Managing Director after the aforesaid letter dated 17^th January 2006.  It is well settled principle of law for making of representations before various authorities would not stop the running of the period of limitation.  The complainant, in these circumstances, further approached the Insurance Regulatory Authority to intervene into the matter for the second time knowing fully well that it refused to interfere with the repudiation of the claim of the complainant earlier.  However, by a letter dated 25^th June 2007 the said Regulatory Authority upheld the repudiation of the claim made by the insurer thereby affirming the repudiation made by the insurer earlier on 26^th August 2005.  The said letter dated 25^th June 2007 therefor cannot in any event be treated as the date for arising of the cause of action for the first time for filing of the complaint case under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The delay thus had occasioned therefore can be said with certainty was not because of the bonafide manner of seeking redressal by the complainant against refusal of his claim by the aforesaid letter dated 26^th August 2005.  In the process, the complainant allowed four (4) years to go by.  This is no doubt dilatory tactics so as to make the witnesses in support of the repudiation of the claim unavailable at the time of adjudication before the Forum.”

        The claim was repudiated on 26.8.2005.  Cause of action arose to the appellant on the date his claim was repudiated, i.e., on 26.8.2005.  Under Section 24A, complaint could be filed within 2 years of the arising of the cause of action.  Instead of filing the complaint, petitioner approached the Grievance Cell of the Regulatory Authority without approaching the Regulatory Authority itself.  His petition was rejected.  Long after rejection of the claim, appellant approached the insurance company Ombudsman on 28.12.2005 who expressed his inability to entertain the claim by its letter dated 17.1.2006.  Even after that the appellant did not file the complaint.  Appellant thereafter approached the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the insurance company on 29.4.2006 which application was rejected by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director.  After a long delay thereafter, the complaint was filed. 

        Making representations before the various Authorities cannot stop running of the period of limitation.  State Commission has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay. 

However, dismissal of the complaint would not disentitle the petitioner from pursuing any other remedy for redressal of his grievances. 

Dismissed.