Order no.  3           

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

Perused. Considered. Heard Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

The case of the complainant is that the complainant as a Public Limited Company insured the goods and stock of business in its factory premises with the opposite party with effecting period on and from 27.11.2018 to 21.04.2019 having policy coverage to the tune of Rs.20.30 crore. The complainant company having its insurance since the year 2011 on making payment of premium amount every year. On 09.12.2018 a devastating fire broke out in the early hours at the factory premises of the complainant and the entire stock of raw materials was burnt to ashes. On 10.12.2018 the complainant informed the opposite party about the incident and thereafter submitted a claim amounting to Rs.15,11,79,644/- (Rupees fifteen crores eleven lakhs seventy nine thousands six hundred and forty four) only along with all necessary documents. The opposite party after receiving the information of the incident appointed a surveyor namely Sri Subrata Bose. The surveyor made assessment of the loss suffered by the complainant and prepared a surveyor report. According to the complainant the surveyor vide his report dated 22.11.2019 arbitrarily reduced the claim by 26% and recommended an amount of Rs.8.82 crore. The complainant submitted objection against the report of the surveyor. According to the complainant the opposite party vide its repudiation letter dated 03.02.2021 repudiated the claim of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant made several correspondences with the opposite party to reconsider its claim but no fruitful result yielded. The complainant having no other alternative filed the instant case. Complainant has annexed photo copy of repudiation letter dated 03.02.2021 issued by the opposite party addressing the complainant. Page no.2 of the letter dated 03.02.2021 is illegible. However, from the first page of the letter dated 03.02.2021, it is crystal clear that the opposite party sent this letter under registered speed post to the complainant repudiating its claim under policy no.311504/11/2019/18.

Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 deals with the period of limitation for filing complaint case.

Section 69(1) is read as follows:-

“69. Limitation period.- (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.”

In this case it crystal clear that the cause of action arose on 03.02.2021 i.e. the date of repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party. The complainant has filed this case on 05.04.2024 after lapse of the limitation period of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

However, section 69(2) read as follows:-

“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

In this case the complainant has not prayed for condonation of delay for filing the complaint case beyond the period of limitation i.e. after two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen under section 69(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Having considered the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the complaint case is barred by limitation as such not maintainable in law.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed as barred by limitation.