IMPORTANT POINT
Time-barred complaint cannot be entertained.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Misc. Appl. No. MA/12/394 in Consumer Complaint No. 12/322 – Mr. Vandan Pareshkumar Manghita, Director of M/s. Solar Chemforts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Div. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. by which, application for condonation of delay of 394 days in filing complaint was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant’s goods in various godowns were insured by OP/respondent by fire and peril policy from 28.2.2008 to 27.2.2009. On 5.4.2008, fire broke down in godown and complainant suffered damages. Complainant intimated to OP regarding fire and OP appointed surveyor. Complainant furnished all requisite documents to the surveyor, but neither surveyor submitted report, nor claim of the complainant was granted. On 21.3.2012, OP intimated complainant that case has been closed. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint along with application for condonation of delay under Section 24-A of the C.P. Act. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed application for condonation of delay against which, this appeal has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that strictly speaking there was no occasion for filing application for condonation of delay, but as a precautionary measure, application for condonation of delay was filed and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application and dismissing complaint; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and alleged delay be condoned. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.

5. In paragraph 13 of the complainant, complainant had pleaded that cause of action accrued on 21.3.2012 when he received letter from OP refusing to consider his claim. Paragraph 8 of the application under Section 24-A runs as under:

“8. The complainant submit that opposite party repudiate the claim of Rs.59,10,293/- vide letter dated (blank) and therefore first cause of action arose on when the opposite party repudiate the claim of the complainant. Thereafter due to the continuous follow up with the opposite party for their Legitimate claim, the opposite party had again send the repudiation letter 03/2012 and the present complaint was filed on (blank) which is within time limit of two years as per section 24-A Consumer Protection Act 1986.

6. Later on, complainant moved miscellaneous application No. 394/2012 for amendment in condonation of delay application and submitted that he may be allowed to insert 394 days delay in the application and lastly requested that delay of 394 days in filing complaint may be condoned.

7. Learned State Commission rightly observed that in first application dated 21.11.2012, number of days of delay to be condoned has not been mentioned and in subsequent application, delay of 394 days has been mentioned. It was further rightly observed that application for condonation of delay does not reflect any reason for condonation of delay.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as claim was repudiated by letter dated 21.3.2012, complaint was well within limitation, but as abundant precaution, application for condonation of delay has been filed. Whereas learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that vide letter dated 20.3.2009, appellant was intimated that claim was closed as it was not supported by valid documents/information. Again, vide letter dated 8.9.2009, appellant was intimated regarding closing of the case as no claim. Further, by letter dated 8.8.2011, appellant was again intimated that claim was closed as no claim as indicated vide letter d