PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The main controversy swirls round the question is whether the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by time U/S 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. Counsel for the parties heard. The theft took place on 25.07.1990. While the present complaint was filed on 13.12.2001 i.e. after more than 11 years and 4 months against the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Opposite Party. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the Complainant was barred by time and it relied upon the authorities reported in the case of “State Bank of India versus B.S. Agricultural Industries”, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT 2009 (4) SC 191 and Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court (CP). 2. We are unable to subscribe to the view propounded by the State Commission. Counsel for the respondent submits that they have not yet repudiated the claim made by the complainant. He has also invited our attention towards the letter dated 14.12.99, which is reproduced here as under:- “We refer to your letter dated 9/12/99 on the above matter. We want to clarify that in the above matter we have given you final reminder on 21/10/91 for submission of papers. We have not received any response from your end. As we cannot keep open files as per norms so we have closed the file as no claim. This is for your information.” 3. In this letter the claim was closed as having no claim. This letter was written 8 years after the last notice sent on 30.10.1991. It rather shows negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the OP. If the case was taken after 8 years, show cause notice should have been sent to the complainant. It is thus clear that the claim is still pending. Letter of repudiation is yet to be sent. 4. This is very strange that when the order is being dictated in the open court after hearing both the counsel, learned counsel for the respondent interrupts and prays for adjournment because other party has not filed the policy. The respondent should have filed the same. No ground at this stage. It is also mentioned here that the above said authorities of the Supreme Court hardly dovetail with the facts of this case. 5. The order passed by the State Commission is hereby set-aside and we remand the case back to the State Commission to decide the case on merits. 6. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 16.09.2013. 7. The Revision Petition stands disposed of. | 
