IMPORTANT POINT
A complaint is to be filed within 2 years from accrual of cause of action.

Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President, —Facts have been noted in detail in the impugned order passed by the District Forum, Hamirpur in Consumer Complaint No. 44/2005 dated 17.5.2006.

2. Facts which we feel are necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are being briefly noted. We may further notice in this behalf that learned counsel for the parties were not at variance, so far different dates are concerned. Accident is of 3.6.2001, after receipt of intimation about it, the respondent called for information/documents etc. vide its letter dated 22.8.2001 from the appellant Finally instead of settling the claim on 3.1.2002, it was repudiated. Photostat copy of repudiation letter is at page 44 of the complaint file as Annexure R8. Further the complaint file shows that the complaint was presented before District Forum on 10.3.2005.

3. In the aforesaid background vide impugned order, District Forum has dismissed the complaint, hence this appeal.

4. Before proceeding further in this matter we may notice that period of limitation for filing the complaint is 2 years from the date when cause of action has accrued. And a prayer can be made for condonation of delay if the complaint is not filed within the prescribed time, on sufficient cause being shown due to which a litigant, like appellant was prevented from filing the complaint within time. A perusal of the entire complaint does not suggest anything said for the condonation of delay. We are alive of the fact that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the Act), was enacted keeping in view the larger interest as well as welfare of the consumers and at the same time to provide them speedy and expeditious justice by taking out the cases from the shackles of regular civil litigation. In fact, the proceedings under this act are summary in nature and are meant to provide rough and ready as well as inexpensive justice. However at the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that after the expiry of limitation the legislature has given a chance to a litigant to make out a case for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. This is meant as well as in consonance with the object sought to be achieved to make the provisions of the Act from effective and less expensive.

5.In the aforesaid background Mr. Khan submitted that his clients had gone to the office of the respondent for settlement of the claim number of times. And after being satisfied that no fruitful purpose is going to be served, complaint was filed which is not barred by time. With a view advance to his case he placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Wg. Comd. R.J. Darukhanawala v. Manjith Singh Representative of M/s Man Jog Builders.1

6. A perusal of this judgment shows that in it the flat in question was assured for which the complainant had paid Rs. 2,20,000. When delivery of flat was offered, the complainant cancelled the agreement and demanded back the money. In this background after cancellation of agreement negotiations were going on between the parties and then complaint was filed in the year 1994. A perusal of this judgment shows that it is purely a judgment of its own fact that complainant had claimed back the money and negotiations were going on between the parties in that behalf. Besides written communications, complainant had made several oral communications. In this background the complaint was held to be not barred by time.

7. A perusal of the complaint file before us shows that there is no correspondence exchanged between the parties after repudiation of the claim on 3.1.2002 by the Insurance Company. Regarding complainants’ visits to the office of Insurance Company after the death of Garib Dass, there is a vague mention in paragraph 10 in the complaint, and what was assured and by whom to whom there is nothing on record in that behalf. Only thing said regarding limitation by the complainants is that in the last February of 2005 complainant and Ranbir Singh again visited the office o