IMPORTANT POINT
Protracted correspondence does not extend limitation.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—Complainants filed complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 10.4.2003 against opposite parties for recovery of Rs.2,69,00,000/- along with 24% p.a. interest and other damages.

2. Complainants filed application under Section 24-A (2) of the Consumer Protection Act on 18.8.2004 and alleged that according to reply filed on behalf of OP Nos. 1 & 2 there is an inordinate delay in filing the claim petition as the claim had been repudiated by the Insurance Company on 24.3.1994 which was reaffirmed by the letter dated 29.2.1996. Complainant further submitted that complainant made a representation well within time to OP/Insurance Co. to review its decision dated 29.2.1996, but this petition was rejected by Director and General Manager vide letter dated 5.10.1998. Later on, complainant made representation from time to time to Finance Minister, Finance Secretary and Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Insurance Company to look into the matter and also submitted representation to Chairman-cum-Managing Director on 7.2.2001. Complainant also made representation to Grievance Department of the Insurance Company on 13.1.2001 and by letter dated 30.1.2001 complainant was assured that matter is being taken up with the concerned operating officer. Again complainant made representation on 3.9.2001 to the Director Public Grievances and Jt. Secretary Insurance, Govt. of India but vide letter dated 15.1.2002 complainant was informed finally about rejection of his claim and limitation starts from 15.1.2002 and thus the complaint was filed within the period of limitation. It was further alleged that had the claim of insured rejected being not maintainable, limitation would have run from the date of repudiation of the claim or from the date of its reaffirmation. In such circumstances, there is no delay in filing complaint and even if it is found that there is delay in filing complaint, there exists sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of limitation and delay deserves to be condoned.

3. Opposite parties/Insurance Company submitted reply and alleged that application seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint is not maintainable as it has been filed after more than 16 months of filing the complaint. Application is highly belated as has been filed more than after 8 months of filing reply to the complaint by OPs in which specific objection regarding period of limitation had been raised as preliminary issue. It was further alleged that if remedy under other relevant law has become time barred, remedy for the same relief under Consumer Protection Act will not be available. Remedy under Civil Law had become barred by limitation on 24.3.1997, as such, complaint filed after expiry of period of limitation, is liable to be dismissed. It was further submitted that opposite parties confirmed their earlier decision of repudiation of insurance claim vide letter dated 29.2.1996 and 5.10.1998 and repudiation of claim vide letter dated 24.3.1994 will not enhance period of limitation by subsequent reconfirmation. It was denied that complainant was informed finally about rejection of his claim vide letter dated 15.1.2002. This fact was denied that complainant was kept in dark by giving assurance of considering his claim by the opposite parties. As the complaint is hopelessly time barred and has been filed after 9 years of the letter of repudiation dated 24.3.1994, application may be dismissed with costs.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

5. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Shilpi Modes through its proprietor Complainant No.1 booked a consignment of 499 cartons, consisting of 49,900 pieces of cotton knitted T-shirts. This consignment was duly insured with OP No. 1. Consignment was shipped on board on 5.2.1993, but it did not reach at final destination and as such, Complainant No. 1 approached OP for redressal of its claim on various dates