IMPORTANT POINT
Delay must be explained by adducing cogent reasons.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 24.02.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (for short ‘the State Commission’) in FA No. 159/2012, “Saurav and others versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,” vide which, while dismissing the appeal, order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala, in consumer complaint no. 229/2011, dismissing the complaint, was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Smt. Sunita Arora, since deceased, who was the wife of petitioner/complainant no.3, L.M. Arora, and mother of petitioner 1 & 2, her minor children, was a teacher in Bhartiya Public School, Ambala Cantt. She was the owner of an Activa Honda vehicle, bearing registration No. HR01M-1059, which was insured with the OP, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company’) from 07.02.2008 to 06.02.2009. On 05.08.2008, when Smt. Sunita Arora was going to the school on the said vehicle, she met with an accident, resulting in her death at the spot. Her husband, petitioner/complainant no. 3 made an application dated 22.08.2008 to the OP requesting them to pay the amount of personal accident cover, i.e., Rs.1 lakh along with cost of repairs. It has been stated in the complaint that the necessary documents were handed over to the representatives of the OP, except the driving licence, which was lost at the time of accident. The insurance company, however, sent a letter dated 16.03.2009, repudiating the claim on the ground of non-completion of necessary formalities. The complainant again sent a letter dated 15.07.2009 to the OP informing that the licence had been lost at the time of accident and OP again replied vide letters dated 18.08.2009 and 27.08.2009 that the claim had been declined for non-submission of documents. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainants but the same was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that it was time barred, because it had been filed beyond a period of two years from the date of cause of action and hence, beyond limitation as per section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was held that the cause of action arose from the date of the letter of repudiation dated 16.03.2009, but the complaint was filed on 22.07.2011. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the State Commission upholding the view taken by the District Forum. It was also stated that the appeal filed before the State Commission was beyond limitation, as there was a delay of 154 days in filing the appeal. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

3. At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the letter dated 16.03.2009, vide which the claim was repudiated, was never received by them. The cause of action should be taken from the date of subsequent letters dated 18.08.2009 and 27.08.2009, received from the insurance company. The complaint was very much within limitation, if the cause of action is taken from these dates.

4. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

5. A perusal of the complaint in question reveals that it has been stated in paragraph 9 of the complaint that letter dated 16.03.2009 addressed to Smt. Sunita Rani was sent by OP giving information about closing the claim case on the ground of non-completion of formalities, though the complainant had already handed over all documents to Mr. Rajesh of the OP insurance company, except driving licence, because it was lost at the time of accident. The District Forum stated in their order that this was an admission on the part of the complainant that the letter of repudiation was sent on 16.03.2009 and hence, the complaint was barred by limitation. The District Forum has observed in their order a