The main legal point established in the judgment is that cases under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 must be filed within the specified limitation period, unless 'sufficient cause' for delay is established.

ORDER

Debasis Bhattacharya Presiding Member - This appeal is directed against the Order dated 25-11-2013 in C.C. No. 160/2011, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-II, Kolkata, whereby the instant case has been dismissed on contest. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal.

2. Case of the Complainant, very briefly, is that they intimated the OP Insurance Company vide letter dated 30-08-2006 about happening of a theft/burglary of company assets that took place in their factory on the very same day. On the basis of such information, a Surveyor inspected the factory and prepared a list of stolen articles and its value in his own handwriting. Besides, the matter was also reported to Barasat P.S. and on the basis of their complaint, a case being no. 697/2006 was started on 30-08-2006, u/s 461/379, IPC. Police have filed FRT before the Ld. CJM, Barasat on 30-09-2006. Thereafter, the Complainant made several requests to the OP for settling the claim, but no fruitful result came out. Being frustrated, the Complainant sent a letter on 28-08-2009 to the OP Insurance Company with a request to take all possible action for settlement of claim of loss at the earliest. As they did not receive any positive reply from the side of the OP Insurance Company, they sent a legal notice on 09-05-2011, but to no avail. So, finding no other alternative, the Complainant filed the instant complaint case before the Ld. District Forum.

3. OP No. 1 contested the case by filing W.V. whereby they stated that they repudiated the claim of the Complainant vide letter dated 15-03-2007. Thereafter no valid communication has been made from the end of the Insurance Company. The instant case was filed in the year 2011 though it should have been filed within two years from the date of repudiation, i.e., on or before 15-03-2009. Therefore, the instant complaint petition is barred by limitation as per section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Surveyor, in his report, specifically stated that the alleged burglary was committed since the miscreants entered the factory premises through a gap created for installation of exhaust fan and they scaled with the help of a ladder set on the northern side of the factory and at the time of leaving the factory premises and after completion of their operation, the miscreants broke the padlock from inside the factory. The said survey report specifically stated that there was no forcible entry in respect of the incident and hence, such incident does not come within the purview of the policy condition and therefore, the claim is inadmissible. The Complainant never furnished the required documents as asked for and the Surveyor, deputed by the Insurance Company did not get any opportunity to make any assessment regarding the quantum of loss.

4. Point to be considered in this appeal is whether the impugned order is tenable from legal and factual aspects of the case, or not.

Decision with reasons

5. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that a theft/burglary took place in their factory premises on 30-08-2006 and due intimation to this effect was communicated to the Insurance Company as well as the local Police Station on the very same day. Although a Surveyor was deployed by the Respondent to investigate the matter, who during his visit to the factory premises, noted down details of stolen items and submitted a report to the Insurer, the latter has not yet settled their legitimate claim. By the FRT filed by the Police in the Ld. Court of CJM, Barasat, they reported the matter of theft/burglary as true. Although they regularly followed up the matter with the Insurance Company - by personally visiting the office of the OP Insurance Company as well as through written letters, the Insurance Company, seemingly unmoved, did not bother to even respond to their repeated communiques, let alone settle their legitimate claim. So, finding no other alternative, the instant co