23.01.2024

SH. RAJESH, MEMBER

1. Vide this order we will be deciding the admissibility of present complaint.
2. A complaint has been filed by complainant seeking direction to OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 89,396/- with interest, cost and compensation on account of insurance claim of the stolen E Rikshaw of the complainant.
3. It is stated by the complainant in his complaint that the Complainant purchased an E-rickshaw bearing No. DL 1 ERA 8416, having chassis No. M22YCEYD16H001504 on 12.09.2016 for a consideration of INR 94, 101/- from YC Electric Vehicle.
4. It is stated that the E-rickshaw was purchased with the aid of finance from OP-2. That the Complainant got the said vehicle insured from the Opposite Party No. 1 for a sum insured of Declared Value of INR 89,396/- (Rupees Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Six Only). The validity of the insurance was from 12.09.2016 till midnight of 11.09.2017. Despite requests, the policy document with terms and conditions was not provided to the Complainant and merely a Certificate of Insurance was provided.
5. It is stated that the said vehicle was stolen on 29.12.2016. The complainant all efforts to trace the stolen vehicle as it was the only means of his livelihood and also reported the theft of the E Rickshaw to the Police. The complainant reported the incidence of theft to Police and an FIR dated 30.12.2016 was registered.
6. It is stated that the complainant visited the branch office of the OP No.1 situated at Gurugram and intimated about the theft of the vehicle and lodged the insurance claim.  The complainant fully co-operated the OP1 in all respect.
7. It is stated that representatives of the Opposite Party No.1 also visited the house of the Complainant and made enquires with his neighbours. The Complainant was ultimately assured that the claim will be processed within a period of 3 months. 
8. That more than three months elapsed but the claim of the Complainant was not processed. In 2019, after elapse of almost two year from lodging the claim, the Complainant, who was completely dejected with the apathetic attitude of Opposite Party No. 1 visited the branch office and again submitted all the documents and urged the Opposite Party No. 1 to process his claim. He was finally, after a period of 2 years from raising of the claim, informed that the claim was pending because of want of untrace report.
9. That the complainant redoubled his efforts and contacted the police officials who revived the FIR of the Complainant and filed an untrace report with the concerned Court. The Complainant, on 24.01.2020, 24.01.2020, itself submitted the untrace report with the Opposite Party. A Copy of the First information Report dated 07.10.2019 has been filed by the complainant. 
10. It is stated that the Complainant has sent a letter dated 13.04.2023 to the Opposite Party asking for the disbursal of the claim amount. The Complainant maintained that all of the documents as asked for by the Opposite Party has been supplied to them by the him. The officials of the Opposite Party No. 1 have been taking advantage of the unsuspecting nature of the Complainant by lulling him with false assurances.
11. It is stated that the said vehicle was the means of livelihood for the Complainant, which admittedly was stolen years ago. It has put dire financial constraints on the Complainant. Furthermore, the said vehicle was bought by acquiring loan from OP-2, which has initiated Recovery proceedings against the Complainant. This is a direct result of the non-disbursal of the claim amount by the Opposite Party No. 1. The Complainant has not just lost the means of his livelihood but also crumbling under the pressure of loan and payment of interest, which could have been avoided had of the Opposite Party processed the claim Complainant on time.
12. It is stated that the claim of the Complainant has not been processed by Opposite Party No. 1 till date. The Complainant has been continually requesting Opposite Party No. 1 to process the claim and release the sum, however, the Opposite Party has failed to honour the claim despite the fact that a period of approximately seven (7) years has elapsed since filing of the claim.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that processing of claim of the insurance, be it rejection, must be made in a reasonable time. The Opposite Party No. 1 sold the insurance policy to the insured and refused to honour the same. The Complainant is gravely aggrieved by the high handed, callous and unlawful act of the Opposite Party No.1.
14. It is stated that the cause of action to file the present complaint in favour of complainant and against OP first arose on 12.09.2016, when the Opposite Parties induced and duped the Complainant
15. We have perused the contentions raised in the complaint and hard counsel for parties on the point of limitation of the present complaint.
16. From the bare perusal of the facts and allegations made in the complaint by the complainant it is apparent that the cause of action in favour of the complainant and against the OP1 arose on December 2016 when complainant reported the theft to opposite party No.1. Though it is stated that cause of action further arose on 08.04.2019 and thereafter on when complainant visited the office of the OP1 and intimated them about two years delay in processing the insurance claim of the complainant however complainant however complainant failed to explain the delay of two years in follow up of the claim. It is stated that cause of action is subsisting in nature as the claim has not been paid till date. We do not agree with the contention of the complainant that subsequent visit after two years give rise to fresh cause of action or cause of action is subsisting in nature in view of the particular facts and circumstance of this case.    
17. As per the averments made in the complaint cause of action in favour of the complainant and against the OP1 arose on December 2016 when complainant reported the theft to opposite party No.1.. We add a reasonable time of six months to this till that time OP1 didn’t process the claim of the complainant i.e. 30.06.2017, therefore, present complaint should have been filed on or before 30.06.2019 however same has been actually filed on 04.12.2023 with a delay of  four years five months and 4 days. No application for condonation of this delay has been preferred by the complainant. 
18. Let us now peruse the relevant provisions of C.P. Act, 2019 dealing with the limitation same is reproduced as under.

Section 69 Limitation:—

(1) The District Forum, 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.

(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 Forum, 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 National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

19. In State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP)=JT 2009 (4) SC 191, it was held as under: 

It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is premptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, shall not admit a complaint occurring in Section 24A (Corresponding Section 69 of C.P. Act, 2019)  is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A (Corresponding Section 69 of C.P. Act, 2019)  and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.

20.  In Ram Lal and Ors. v Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed"

"It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on the ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bonafides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the inquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."

21.     In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media Ltd. & Anr.", II (2012) SLT 312 wherein it was held by the Apex Court as under:

        "In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of red-tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitments. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The Law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the department for the delay except mentioning the various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay".

22. 10.    In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2013(1) CCC 525 (NS) : 2009(2) Scale 108, it has been observed.

                "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition".

23. Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down as under:

    "There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of which is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence".

24. Section 69 of C.P. Act, 2019 provides that neither the District Forum nor the State Commission nor the National Commission shall admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The term "cause of action" is of wide import and has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. It refers to all circumstances or bundle of facts which if proved or admitted entitles the plaintiff (complainant) to the relief prayed for. In the context of limitation with reference to a contract for insurance the date of cause of action may refer to the date the when insurance claim of the complainant is rejected to is not finalized within six months of filing the same.
25. Now applying the above discussed provisions of law and Principles laid down in the present case. As per admitted facts by the complainants that the cause of action in favour of the complainant and against the OPs arose on 30.06.2017 when complainant OP1 failed to process the insurance claim of the complainant. The present complaint is admittedly filed on 04.12.2023. However present complaint should have been filed on or before 30.06.2019 i.e. within a period of two years from the date when cause of action finally arose which is 30.06.2017 in the present case as stated above. Though thereafter the complainant spent considerable time in following up with the OP1 with regard to insurance claim, however, same will be of no help to complainant since once a period of limitation starts, it cannot be enlarged or extended by subsequent events unconnected with cause of action against allegedly defaulting party.
26. On the basis of above statutory position, judicial pronouncements observations and discussions we present complaint has been with a delay of four years five months and four days and therefore barred by limitation hence not maintainable before this Commission, Accordingly, same is rejected.
27. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission  on 23.01.2024.

(SANJAY KUMAR )           (NIPUR CHANDNA)                 (RAJESH)

    PRESIDENT                              MEMBER                         MEMBER