National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mahesh Nensi Shah vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 7 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: III(2006)CPJ414(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Presiding Member
1. Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where he has filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had purchased a Maruti Car for his personal use and also engaged a driver. It is the driver who took away the car without permission and never came back. The complainant reported about the theft of the car to the police as also to the respondent Insurance Company. The respondent Insurance Company, after due consideration, repudiated the claim in the year 1992. In between certain correspondences were exchanged between the parties. Finally, a complaint was filed before the District Forum in 1997. The plea with regard to limitation was taken before the District Forum, however, they did not agree with this plea and went' on to pass the order directing the respondent to pay Rs. 3,23,000 along with rate on interest from 2.2.1992 till the date of payment along with cost pf Rs. 5,000. The respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission, who allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation, hence this revision petition before us.
3. The basic facts are not disputed hence are not being reproduced. Undisputedly the theft of the car took place in 1992 and the matter was reported to the respondent, who after due consideration repudiated the claim in year 1992 itself. The cause of action for filing the complaint arose in 1992 itself because it is by now settled law that repudiation itself is the 'Cause of Action'. No amount of correspondence between the parties can extend the period of limitation, whereas in the present case the complaint was filed after almost 5 years of the 'Cause of Action'. No sufficient ground, except exchange of correspondence between the parties, has been shown to us to satisfy us that there were sufficient grounds for filing the complaint with such great delay. The State Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation for the simple reason that any amount of correspondence does not extend the period of limitation as per settled law. We are in full agreement with the arguments advanced in favour of allowing the complaint before the State Commission.
4. In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in the revision petition, hence dismissed.