The court emphasized the importance of providing a satisfactory explanation for delay in filing a consumer complaint and interpreted the exclusion clause of the insurance policy to determine the admissibility of the claim.

ORDER

C.C. Pant, Member - M/s Sam Cables and Conductors (P) Ltd., 6th Km. Rudrapur, Kichha Road, Post Lalpur-263148, District Udhamsingh Nagar has filed a consumer complaint on 16.12.2011 under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 through its Managing Director Mr. Darbara Singh (hereinafter referred to as "complainant"). The complainant has also moved an application along with the consumer complaint, praying therein that the delay in filing the consumer complaint be condoned and the case be admitted for hearing on merit.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, as stated in the consumer complaint and the application for condonation of delay, are that the complainant company is the manufacturer of Copper and Aluminum Cables. It had taken a Burglary Insurance Policy, bearing No. 420904/46/07/04/00000104 from The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Office 420904, Hotel Sidhu Palace, Nainital Road, Rudrapur (Udhamsingh Nagar) (hereinafter referred to as "opposite party") covering a risk of Rs. 1.50 crores on the stock of finished and semi-finished goods and raw material. The insurance policy was valid for the period from 23.9.2007 to 22.9.2008. As per the complaint, a burglary took place in the factory in the intervening night of 3rd and 4th August, 2008 and the thieves took away copper bundles weighing about 5050.25 Kg., causing a loss of Rs. 22,62,281.20 to the complainant. An F.I.R. was lodged with the Police Station, Rudrapur on 4.8.2008 and the opposite party was also intimated immediately regarding the incident. The opposite party deputed M/s. Atul Kapur and Company as Surveyor, who submitted its report dated 19.7.2009 to the Insurance Company , assessing the loss at Rs. 15,90,690. However, the opposite party repudiated the complainant's claim on 11.11.2009 stating that "As Per Policy Exclusion the Claim is Apparently not covered under the Scope of the policy." Alleging that the repudiation of the claim for the aforesaid reason amounts to unfair trade practice and undue harassment of the complainant, a consumer complaint was filed on 16.12.2011 along with an application under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for condoning the delay in filing the consumer complaint.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on delay condonation application and perused the record.

4. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:

"24A. Limitation period (l) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in Sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."

5. Accordingly, a consumer complaint should be filed within a period of 2 years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen and if the complainant fails to file the consumer complaint within 2 years' period of limitation, the reason for the same should be explained. In the instant case, the incident of burglary occurred on 4.8.2008. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr, (2009) 3 CPJ 75 (SC), the cause of action had arisen on this date and accordingly the last date of filing the consumer complaint was 3.8.2010. If we say that the claim was repudiated on 11.11.2009 by the opposite party and hence the cause of action upto this date was a continuing one, the consumer complaint should have been filed on or be