State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Premchand Kashyap vs M/S Metlife India Insurance Company ... on 10 March, 2026
FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 15.02.2023
Date of Hearing: 11.02.2026
Date of Decision: 10.03.2026
FIRST APPEAL NO. 58/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP,
15-A, POCKET-B,
HARI NAGAR, LIG FLATS,
NEW DELHI-110064.
(Through: Mr. Satya Narayan, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
1. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRIGADE SHESHAMAHAL,
5, VANI VILAS ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE-560004.
(Through: Mr. Ankit Bharti, Advocate)
... Respondent No. 1
2. M/S. AXIS BANK LTD.,
C-3/21, JANAKPURI,
WEST DELHI BRANCH,
NEW DELHI-110058.
(Through: Mr. Hrithik Goyal and Mr. L. R. Goyal, Advocates)
... Respondent No. 2
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 24
FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Mr. Satya Narayan, Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Ankit Bharti, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Hrithik Goyal and Mr. L. R. Goyal, Counsel for the Respondent
No. 2.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"1. That the complainant has filed a complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act stating therein that:
a. The complainant is a senior citizen who retired from Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi He is maintaining a priority Savings Bank Account vide account no. 207010100193065with OP No.2.
b. The Complainant has filed the present complaint against (OP-1) and their above-said business partner, Axis Bank Ltd. (OP-2), for misleading & hiding the material facts, deficiency in service and adopting Unfair Trade Practice etc, to promote their sale, thereby subjecting the innocent senior citizen complainant to financial loss, un-necessary harassment and mental torture, for none of his faults.
c. The complainant, visited OP-2 on 19.02.2007, for investing some of his retirement funds in a Fix Deposit, where he was approached and mislead by the OP, to invest in OP-1 and requested the complainant to sign the Proposal Form. d. On 19.02.2007, the complainant signed the Proposal and issue Cheque No.133611 dated 19.02.2007 for Rs.30,000/- for the said insurance policy of OP-1, which was sourced by OP-2.
DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 e. The OP-1 had received the Proposal form on 19.2,2007 but had taken more than 2 months in communicating the acceptance of the insurance policy. The Policy was issued w.e.f. 23.4.2007 vide their letter dated 10.5.2007, thereby proving its own deficiency in service. This, deficiency in service has caused financial loss to the complainant, for not enabling him to get a 30% Income Tax Rebate u/s- 80c of the Income Tax Act, as per rules, on the premium of Rs.30,000/-. The amount was paid by him to the OP-1 on 19.2.2007 vide cheque dated 19.2.2007, in the Financial Year 2006-2007. f. The complainants bank account was debited and the Metiife's account was credited on 21.2.2007 with this First Premium of Insurance of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant was also medically examined and proved "Medically Fit".
g. As such, the policy should have been issued by the Insurer, within 15 days from the receipt of a proposal, dated 19.2.2007, (i.e. in the Financial Year 2006-2007 itself). But the policy was issued w.e.f. 23.04.2007 instead of from 19.2.2007 (i.e. with a delay of more than two months, in the next Financial Year 2007-2008). No interest was paid for this delay of more than 2 moriths. Moreover, had the company issued the policy within 15 days from the actual date of receipt of the proposal dated 19.02,2007, as per the above- said rules, the complainant would have availed the 30% Income Tax Rebate u/s 80c of the Income Tax Act, on the investment of Rs.30,000/- in the same Financial Year 2006- 2007 itself. But due to this delay on the part of OP-1, in the issue of the Policy, the financial year changed from 2006- 2007 to 2007-2008, and thus, due to this delay, the complainant was debarred of availing 30% rebate on the premium of Rs.30,000/-in the financial year 2006-2007, u/s 80c of the Income Tax Act. Hence the complainant was subjected to financial loss due to the "Deficiency in Service"
on the part of the OP-1 company for "non issuance of the DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 policy on time, as per above-said rules of the IRDA Regulations 2002".
h. However, on 19.04.2008, the complainant received a Letter No. DBS BI, 5805/05.02.26/F010/2007-08 dated 11.04.2008 from RBI, New Delhi, where OP-1 was blaming the complainant for making delay in getting his medical tests done. But the fact is that it was the complainant only, who contacted the concerned employee, time and again; to get his medical tests done urgently, as the OP had already received the money but intentionally delaying the issue of Insurance Policy to the complainant, for want of its own interest and safety.
i. When the complainant received the "Account Statement"
from the OP-1 vide their letter dated 10.05.2007, he came to know that the company had also deducted certain charges like "Premium Allocation Charges Rs.1650/-, Cost of Insurance Rs. 236.43/- and Fixed Administration Charges Rs.200/- "about which the Complainant was never informed at the time of selling their product. It is understood that OP is not disclosing it intentionally to other customers also and keep all the customers in dark at the time of selling their product. As such, after deducting these "Hidden Charges" of Rs. 2086.43/-the First Premium of Rs. 30,000/- paid by the complainant, was reduced to Rs. 27,913.57/- instead of the assured increase, at least, equal to that of the fixed deposit, as assured by the company at the time of logging-in. The levying of "Hidden Charges" is against fair business norms, natural justice and transparency. Also, it is detrimental to the interest of the Complainant. The complainant, therefore, requested the Refund of the Hidden Charges but nobody cared for it. The malafide intention of the company to mislead the complainant, is very much evident from it. j. The complainant submitted that. Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi advised the complainant vide its letter dated 27.5.2008 that his complaint has been transferred to Banking DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 Ombudsman. There-after, the Banking Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Insurance Ombudsman vide its letter dated 7.7.2008, The Insurance Ombudsman advised the complainant vide its letter dated 21.7.2008 to make a written statement to the Grievance Redressal Officer of Met life Insurance Coy Bangalore under RPG Rules 13(3)(a). The complainant made a written representation dated 12.8.2008 under RPG Rules to the Grievance Redressal Officer of Metlife Insurance Coy Bangalore. As the complainant did not receive any reply from the said Grievance Redressal Officer, he again filed his complaint dated 12.9.2008 with the Hon'ble Insurance Ombudsman, New Delhi-110002, against the OP- 1 and OP-2. The complaint was heard on 24.11.2008. k. At the time of the hearing, the Hon'ble Insurance Ombudsman immediately drew the attention of the complainant that he is not competent enough to consider compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental tension and harassment. If he so desires, he can withdraw the complaint. At this, the complainant withdraw the complaint since he was not prepared to forgo compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental tension and harassment. As such the complaint was withdrawn by the complainant as he wanted to contest it before this Forum as per rules and the law of the land. Hence This Complaint, wherein the complainant prayed that
(i) Refund of Hidden Charges of Rs. 2086.43/- (with up to dateinterest), levied from the complainant in the first year and similarlylevied in the subsequent years.
(ii) Payment of the Penal Interest on the complainants' amount of Rs. 30,000/- for the period of delay for more than two months compoundingup to the date of final payment @ 18% interest, at least, as a matter of Principle.
(iii) Payment of Compensation, at least, Rupees One Lac, for subjecting theComplainant, a Law-abiding, peace-loving senior citizen to mental tension, financial loss and harassment for none of his fault.
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 In addition cost of the litigation, in favour of the complainant and against both the respondents, in the interest of justice.
2. After hearing the arguments on admission, a court notice was issued to OP's returnable on 2/02/2012, accordingly OP appeared and filed written statement, In their reply OP took the following preliminary objection:
a. The instant Complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law and is an attempt to waste. the precious time of this forum, as the same has been filed by the complainant just to avail undue advantage. The complaint is thus liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. b. The complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation and cannot be entertained in view of the expressed provision U/s 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For the ready reference of the Hon'ble Forum, the same is reproduced herein below:
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."
c. The Complainant has failed to explain the delay in filing the instant complaint and has not shown sufficient cause in order to condone the delay and has not given a satisfactory explanation thereof. Thus, the Complainant has not acted DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 diligently for the purpose of filing the instant complaint and as such the Complaint filed by the Complainant is beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 24A of the Act and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
d. Averments made therein, are vague, baseless and with malafide intent. The Complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of deficiency of services, fraud and mis-selling without any documentary evidence in support of his allegations made in the complaint.
e. The complaint filed by the Complainant does not fall within the definition of a 'consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any unfair trade practice adopted by this Opposite Party nor any deficiency in services being established against this Opposite Party, hence the averments and/or allegations made therein ure false, frivolous, baseless and misconceived and, the complaint is liable for rejection and the same may kindly be rejected in totality.
f. The instant Case is false, malicious, incorrect and with malafide intent and is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Forum, as the same has been filed by the Complainant just to avail undue advantage. The Case is thus liable to be dismissed forthwith.
g. The Complainant applied for the policy for the purpose of investment and insurance after fully knowing well about the terms and conditions of the policy The similar Free Look Provision has been incorporated by this Opposite Party in Clause 6.1 of the terms and conditions of "Met Monthly Income Plan (Par Endowment)" plan taken by the Complainant. The Policy was issued on 09.07.2012 and thereafter the Policy documents were dispatched to the complainant on 17.09.2012 via Blue dart courier bearing AWB no 40389208123 However, the Complainant, despite the receipt of the Policy Documents has not raised any DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 objections or Complaints during the free-look period and hence it was presumed that the contract of insurance which we had with the Complainant was legally concluded. h. It is pertinent to note Section 2(01) (g) of CP Act, 1986 defines deficiency as "any fault, imperfection, shortcoming inadequacy in quality, nature and manner performance which required to maintained by under any for time being force or been undertaken to performed by person pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to service" Thus, as per definition and considering the above submissions there been negligence, deficiency of service unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party which had acted with diligence and in good faith.
i. Instant Case is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action.
j. The above Case is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
3. On 21/05/2012, the complainant filed a rejoinder rebutting the defence taken by OP No. 2 and on 22/04/2013 filed his evidence by way of an affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint on 14/07/2006. The complainant has filed his evidence as CW1/PW1 by way of his affidavit and he has relied on certain documents.
4. Thereafter strangely after filing WS, OP no.1 stopped appearing before this commission infact court notice was also issued to OP, still OP's failed to appear before this Commission.
5. Pleadings were complete till 26/09/2013. Oral arguments were heard on 21/11/2022 and finally, the order was reserved."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 04.01.2023, whereby it held as under:
DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026
"6. After going through the material placed on record, without going into merits, it reveals that the main question involved in the present complainant is whether the present Complaint is barred by limitation under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Clearly, the only aspect for consideration before us is whether the Complainant is barred by a limitation or not?
7. As per the law of land, it is already settled that the issue of maintainability can be decided at any stage. Reliance is placed on the following judgements:-
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT in the case titled "Hewlett Packard India Ltd. Vs. Shri Ramachander Gehlot" in CA No. 7107/2003 decided on 16.02.2004 held that "The issue of maintainability has to be decided before admitting or hearing the matter on merit."
8. HON'BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI" in FIRST APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2017 in a case titled "KOSHY VARGHESE THAVALATHI HOUSE, MELE VETTIPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA Versus HDFC BANK LTD. & 2 ORS." Held that "It is settled law that the question in which law point is involved can be decided at any stage of the proceedings of the case.
In view of the above, the present Appeal as also the Complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant before the State Commission is dismissed as being not maintainable with no order as to cost."
9. As per Section 24 A of the Act, 1986 prescribes a limitation period for admission of a complaint by the Consumer Commission, which states that (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.
DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (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.
10. A perusal of the record shows that the present complaint was filed on 3th October 2011. It also said the matter was listed on 5/10/2011 for the first time before this commission.
11. To decide the preliminary issue, we are guided by the judgement of Hon'ble NCDRC on a similar issue in the case of Kishore Shriram Sathe vs Vivek Gajanan Joshi on 1 October 2013 in REVISION PETITION No. 1953 of 2011 held that "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 the 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 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 illegality. Therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such an order set aside.
12. In Union of India and Another v. British India Corporation Ltd. and Others, (2003) 9 SCC 50, while dealing with an aspect of limitation for an application for refund this Court held that the question of limitation was a mandate to the forum and, irrespective of the fact whether it was raised or not, the forum must consider and apply it.
DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026
13. In Haryana Urban Development Authority v. B.K. Sood, (2006) 1 SCC 164, this Court while dealing with the same provision viz., Section 24A of the Act, 1986 held:
"10. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 expressly casts a duty on the Commission admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.
The section debars any fora set up under the Act, admitting a complaint unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen. Neither the National Commission nor the State Commission had considered the preliminary objections raised by the appellant that the claim of the respondent was barred by time, Furthermore, the complaint before the State Commission was filed by the respondent in 1997, ten years after the taking of possession. This was eight years after the cause of alleged damage commenced and three years after that cause ceased. There was not even any prayer by the respondent in his complaint about condoning the delay.
Therefore, the claim of the respondent on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint was clearly barred by limitation as the two-year period prescribed by Section 24-A of the Act had expired much before the complaint was admitted by the State Commission. This finding is sufficient for allowing the appeal."
14. In GannmaniAnasuya and Others v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 296, this Court highlighted regarding Section 3 of the Limitation Act that it is for the court to determine the question as to whether the suit is barred by limitation or not irrespective of the fact DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 that as to whether such a plea has been raised by the parties; such a jurisdictional fact need not even be pleaded.
15. The Supreme Court affirmed the following in the case of State Bank of India v B. S. Agriculture Industries (1) [(2009) 5 SCC 121]:
"As far as the present case is concerned, at the first available opportunity in the written statement itself, the Bank raised the plea that the complaint was barred by limitation, However, the objection with regard to limitation remained unnoticed by all the three fora, namely, District Forum, State Commission and National Commission. Since the question relating to limitation goes to the root of the matter and may render the order illegal, we would now see whether the complaint was filed within time i.e., within two years of accrual of the cause of action. The complaint having been held time-barred, this plea is not of much significance.
As a result, the appeal is allowed. In addition, the decision of the National Commission dated October 1, 2001, affirming the orders of State Commission and District Forum, is set aside. The cis dismissed as time-barred. The parties shall bear their own costs."
16. In N. Manohar Reddy v. Happy Farm and Resorts, I (2014) CPJ 149 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission held thus:-
"16. This Section does not help a person who is guilty of negligence, laches or inaction. The test of good faith is a real and bona fide belief of the plaintiff that he could institute the proceedings in the Court where he first instituted it.
17. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case title Vinod Kumar Kataria vs ARUFA" in First Appeal No.1201 of 2017 decided on 14/09/2017 in which it was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that "period of delay is to be counted from the knowledge of the deficiency.
18. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a DISMISSED PAGE 12 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 matter where the special courts/tribunals have been constituted to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s) for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.
19. further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case title "Cicily Kallarackal Vs Vehicle Factory IV (2012) CPJ I (SC)"
observed that In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.
20. In Ram Lal & others Vs. 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 the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right.
21. In R.B. Ramlingam vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed thus;
We hold that in every case the Court has to examine whether the 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.
22. Hon'ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay in Oriental DISMISSED PAGE 13 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under;
We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitations with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but ensures that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for a redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing of the remedy within the stipulated time.
23. The Hon'ble National Commission in the recent judgement of Hema Hitesh Shah & Anr. Vs. HDFC Bank III (2022) CPJ 63 (NC) held in a case "where Cause of action means the bundle of facts which give rise to an issue between the parties. In this case, the cause of action arose in the year 2008. Now the question is whether subsequent communications between the parties gave rise to a fresh cause of action with each communication. The answer is 'No'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Rekhi Vs. DDA (1988) 2 SCC 338 has expressly observed that a party cannot postpone the accrual of the cause of action by writing reminders or sending reminders." and also in the case of Geo Miller & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Vidyut Uptadan Nigam Ltd. (2020) 14 SCC 643 has observed that, "Mere correspondence of the appellant by way of writing letters/reminders to the respondent after this date would not extend the time of limitation."
24. Hon'ble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned the delay in filing an appeal even by the DISMISSED PAGE 14 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments.
25. The Hon'ble National Commission in the recent judgement of "Pallab Mohan Chakraborti v. Debayan Ganguly", Revision Petition No. 2447 of 2018, decided on 22-2-2022 expressed that "it is trite law that the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafide are attributable to the party, praying for the exercise of such discretion in its favour. when a Statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be scrupulously applied, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty."
26. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. 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 the 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 that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether at its discretion it should condone the delay., but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after the sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.
27. In the present matter, according to the complainantlimitation starts from the cause of action that arose on 12.12.2008 when the complainant received a letter dated 2.12.2008 from the Office of the Hon'ble Insurance Ombudsman, New Delhi containing his Orders and there- after, the cause of action arose on 29.7.2011 when his Advocate died untimely, without filing the complaint and it DISMISSED PAGE 15 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 still continues, whereas the Counsel of the respondent through his reply pointed out that the complaint before the District Forum was time-barred. This objection has been taken by OP as preliminary objection No. 2. Since the issue is purely legal, we have examined the objection ourselves. The complainant himself admitted in the complaint that the OP-1 had received the Proposal on 19.2.2007, but had taken more than 2 months in communicating the acceptance of the insurance policy. The Policy was issued w.e.f. 23.4.2007 vide their letter dated 10.5.2007, thereby proving its own deficiency in service., further as per the complainant's own averment his bank account was debited and OP's account was credited on 21.2.2007 with this First Premium of Insurance of Rs. 30,000/-. In view of this the complaint could have been filed by 22.4.09 but the same was filed in 2011.
28. The complainant wanted to make out that he has been pursuing his remedy before Bank Ombudsman and if the time spent there is excluded, the complaint was within the limitation.
29. In this regard we are relying upon decision of the National Commission in SAPRI GARMENTS PVT. LTD. V. CANARA BANK (2007) CPJ 379 in which it was held that time spent before Bank Ombudsman cannot extend limitation. He also relied upon decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ahalavath Organics Ltd. V. State Bank of Mysore 194 (2012) DLT 698. In para 18 it was held that in order to attract the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the appellant must show that he was pursuing a remedy in a Court without jurisdiction in a bona fide manner and with due diligence. In para 19 it was held that Bank Ombudsman is not a court within the meaning of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Thus, exclusion of time spent in pursuing ready before the Banking Ombudsman cannot be executed.
30. Further in the case of Somasekhar G. V/S ICICI Bank and Ors (2013 STPL 17372 NC) [III (2013) CPJ 577 (NC)], DISMISSED PAGE 16 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 the Hon'ble National Commission held that the Complainants going to Ombudsman and pendency of the case before Ombudsman would not aid the complainant to extend the time as prescribed under section 24 A of the Limitation Act.
31. As per settled Law, going to conciliation proceedings is like going to RBI, Grievance cell or Ombudsman. Hence, we are of the view that the pendency of the conciliation proceedings cannot rescue the complainant and such time cannot automatically be ex-tended or adjusted.
32. Further in Hon'ble State Commission, Delhi in the case of "YOGESH KALRA V/S M/S. ICICI BANK LIMITED"
(First Appeal No. 324/2012) decided on 23.09.2015 held that "Relying upon decision of the National Commission in SAPRI GARMENTS PVT. LTD. V. CANARA BANK (2007) CPJ 379 in which it was held that complaint going to Bank Ombudsman cannot extend limitation. He also relied upon decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ahalavath Organics Ltd. V. State Bank of Mysore 194 (2012) DLT 698. In para 18 it was held that in order to attract the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the appellant must show that he was pursuing a remedy in a Court without jurisdiction in a bona fide manner and with due diligence. In para 19 it was held that Bank Ombudsman is not a court within the meaning of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Thus exclusion of time spent in pursuing ready before the Banking Ombudsman can not be executed.In view of the above decisions we find that the complaint was barred by limitation and should have been dismissed on that ground alone. In any event, the order is based upon evidence and there is no ground to interfere with the findings that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on merits.
33. The Hon'ble State Commission, Goa in the case of Anand Venkatraman v/s M/s. Sunivas Realtors, (First appeal no. 70 of 2017) whilst dismissing the appeal. have answered the issue of limitation vis a vis the conciliation proceeding and DISMISSED PAGE 17 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 has held as under. Be that as it may, merely because conciliation proceedings were pending before the CCC and the failure report dated 15/04/2014 was received by the Complainant on 21/07/2014, that cannot extend the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. The Act does not provide for filing of a complaint before CCC prior to approaching the Forum. At the most, the Complainant could have filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground of pendency of the complaints before the CCC.
34. Limitation goes to the root of the matter. It is only when the complaint is within limitation, the matter can be proceeded with on merits. We have perused the complaint, written version and the written arguments filed by both parties for the purpose of considering the issue of limitation vis a vis the cause of action pleaded by the complainant. The cause of action for the complainant arose lastly on 27th April 2007 and the complaint is filed on 3rd October 2011 which is hopelessly barred by limitation. The only case of the complainant is that he went before the Consumer Conciliation Committee and that he was not aware of the filing of a consumer complaint and he was hoping to get relief before the Consumer Conciliation Committee. In view of these pleadings, there is nothing to be argued on the merits of the matter when we have addressed on merits the issue of limitation and therefore, we find that there is no need to keep this matter for arguments on merits.
35. In view of the above judgements, it is settled law that the act of communication between the parties after the cause of action has arisen does not amount to a continuous cause of action. Whenever a cause of action starts running, it continues and the remedy is to be sought within the prescribed period of limitation. It is not the cause of action which was a continuous one. The wrong was done by the respondent as alleged in the year 2007 for which the remedy had been sought by the complainants by filing the complaint initially in DISMISSED PAGE 18 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 the year 2011. It is not such type of cause of action which is continuous in the sense that the opposite party/respondent was required to continue to do. Certain causes of actions are continuous and these are of the type which put other parties to continue to abide by commitment. In this case, an act of deficiency was already committed by the opposite party/respondent in the year 2007. The act of alleged deficiency was completed in 2007 only. It is not a continuous cause of action, it cannot be said that it continued after 2007. No communication can give rise to a fresh cause of action. The present complaint has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
36. It would be pertinent to begin our discussion by referring to Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires the consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. Admittedly present complaint has been filed by the complaint almost three years after the cause of the alleged deficiency of service. There was not even any prayer by the complainant in his complaint about condoning the delay in filing the present complaint.
37. It is a settled legal proposition that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attractive in such a situation. It has consistently been held DISMISSED PAGE 19 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 that "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.
38. In the light of the judgement discussed above & the legal proposition, we hold that with regard to the question of limitation, neither the facts mentioned in the complaint nor any argument made by the complainant justify the inordinate delay in filing the complaint on 03.10.2011. We, therefore, dismiss the present complaint being barred by limitation as having been filed 2 years after expiry of limitation period.
39. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost after receiving the application for the certified copy as per the direction received from the Hon'ble State Commission.
40. File be consigned to the record room.
41. Announced on 04/01/2023."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal contending that the District Commission has erred in not appreciating that the Complaint filed by the Appellant before the District Commission had a continuous cause of action, therefore, the same was under the period of limitation. Pressing the aforesaid submissions and contentions, the Appellants have prayed for setting aside the Impugned Order passed by the District Commission.
4. The Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has filed a Reply to the present Appeal denying all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the Impugned Order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said Order. Pressing the aforesaid submissions and contentions, the Respondent No. 1 has prayed for setting aside the present Appeal.
5. The Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has filed a Reply to the present Appeal denying all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error DISMISSED PAGE 20 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 in the Impugned Order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said Order. Pressing the aforesaid submissions and contentions, the Respondent No. 2 has prayed for setting aside the present Appeal.
6. Written Arguments on behalf of Appellant are on record, wherein the contents of the Appeal have been reiterated and the same have been considered. The counsel for the Appellant has relied on Revision Petition No. 19 of 2006 titled Kishore Shriram Sathe vs. Vivek Gajanan Joshi as decided on 01.10.2013 in support of his case.
7. Written Arguments on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 are on record, wherein the contents of the Reply to Appeal have been reiterated and the same have been considered. The Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has relied on the following judgments in support of his case:
i. Sapra Garments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Canara Bank as reported in (2007) CPJ 379 ii. Ahalavath Organics Ltd. vs. State Bank of Mysore as reported in 194 (2012) DLT 698
8. Written Arguments on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 are on record, wherein the contents of the Reply to Appeal have been reiterated and the same have been considered. The Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has relied on the following judgments in support of his case:
i. First Appeal No. 106 of 2020 titled Smt. Aruna Devi vs. United Bank of India as decided on 29.03.2020 ii. Som Nath Jain vs. R. C. Goenka as reported in I (1994) CPJ 27NC iii. Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd as reported in I (1998) CPJ 13NC iv. Dr. C. M. Sethi vs. Ahluwalia Constructions as reported in II (1993) CPJ 1116 DISMISSED PAGE 21 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 v. Anil Kumar Pareek vs. Municipal Board, Shahpura as reported in II (1991) CPJ 250
9. We have perused the material available on record.
10.The main question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission erred in considering that the Complaint filed by the Appellant was within the period of limitation.
11.To deal with this question, it is pertinent to refer to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein it is provided as under:
"24A. Limitation period.--
(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.
12.The abovesaid statutory position reflects that a complaint is required to be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. From the bare perusal of the aforementioned, it is clear that this Consumer Commission may entertain a DISMISSED PAGE 22 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 complaint if the Complainant satisfies the Consumer Commission of the sufficient cause for not filing the Complaint within the stipulated time period.
13.Perusal of record reflects that the Appellant has submitted the cause of action for filing the Complainant is continuous, which includes the communication between the parties. However, further perusal reflects that the policy in question was issued to the Appellant on 23.04.2007, after an alleged delay of two months from the issuance of the proposal form dated 19.02.2007, therefore, the cause of action arose on 23.04.2007, and the period of limitation expired on 22.04.2009. The Appellant filed the Complaint before the District Commission on 03.10.2011, which is well beyond the period of limitation for filing of the said Complaint.
14.Keeping in view the aforesaid facts of the present case and the extensive law as discussed above, we find that the District Commission has rightly held that the Complaint of the Appellant is not within the period of limitation as stipulated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and therefore, the order of the District Commission does not suffer from infirmity.
15.Therefore, we uphold the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, District West, C-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi.
16.Accordingly, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
17.Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
18.A copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on DISMISSED PAGE 23 OF 24 FA/58/2023 MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP VS. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR. D.O.D.: 10.03.2026 https://e-jagriti.gov.in for perusal of the parties. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned District Commission.
19.File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT BIMLA KUMARI MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On: 10.03.2026 LR-DK DISMISSED PAGE 24 OF 24