The main legal point established is that the cause of action for filing a complaint under the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act accrues to the consumer on the date of loss intimation, and the Act should be interpreted to protect the rights of consumers and provide a quick and cost-free mechanism for redressal of grievances.

The Civil 1st Appeal, in hand, is directed against the order dated 14th July, 2009 of Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Complaint No. 18 of 2001 titled Ghulam Nabi Shah v. Oriental Insurance Company and others, whereby the Commission has di­rected Oriental Insurance Company Limited-appellant herein, to pay an amount of Rs. 3,55,739/- along with interest of 18% per an­num from the date of loss till final payment along with litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.

2. The appeal arises in the following fac­tual background.

3. The respondent in the year 1994 in­sured his house situated at Nazuk Mohalla, Anantnag, and the house hold goods with the appellant Insurance Company vide Insurance Policy No. 11/5/00542, valid with effect from 12th July, 1994 to 11th July, 1995 for an amount of Rs. 4.50 lacs. The insured house and the household goods gutted down in a fire mishap during the intervening night of 12/13 December, 1994. The occurrence p.ompted Police Station Anantnag to regis­ter case-FIR No. 388 of 1994 under S. 435, R. P. C. The respondent, immediately after the occurrence, informed the appellant In­surance Company about the loss. On receipt of report, the Surveyor was deputed for spot inspection. The respondent took all neces­sary steps to enable the Insurance Company to settle his claim. The appellant Insurance Company however, avoided to settle the claim leaving no option for the respondent, but to approach Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter "Commission") Srinagar with a complaint alleging deficiency in service, on part of the appellant Insurance Company. The respondent laid down to an amount of Rs. 4.50 lacs on account of loss suffered along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of dire incident i.e. 13th De­cember, 1994 till its payment.

4. The complaint was resistsed by the ap­pellant Insurance Company on the grounds that the complaint was belated and filed be­yond period of two years prescribed under Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act (hereainafter "the Act"). It was insisted that the respondent failed to explain and jus­tify delay in approaching the Commission the appellant Insurance Commission next contended, that the respondent lacked cause of action to file the complaint inasmuch as intimation of loss was neither received by the appellant Insurnace Company nor the subject claim registered in its office. The ap­pellant Insurance Company denied all the factual averments made in the complaint and in its para-wise reply reiterated its stand that while loss was said to have occurred to the insured building in the year 1994, the respon­dent slept over the matter for next seven years and approached the Commission only in the year 2001, and that on this count alone the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

5. The Commission on going through the complaint, the written version as also the evidence brought on the file, held the respon­dent to have proved his case by convincing evidence and found no substance in the case set up by the appellant Insurance Company in opposition to the complaint. The Commis­sion accordingly proceeded to accept the complaint and directed the appellant Insur­ance Company to reimburse the respondent loss suffered by him on account of damage to the building and house hold articles as­sessed at Rs. 3,55,739/-.

6. The order of the Commission impugned in the appeal is questioned on the following grounds :-

I. That the Commission has not correctly decided the question of limitation as the re­spondent though having filed complaint af­ter a gap of seven years did not come up with any explanation as regards delay in filling the complaint and the Commission in absence of any explanation on behalf of the respon­dent ought to have dismissed the complaint as time barred.

II. That the appellant Insurance Company deputed M/s. S. H. Kannan & Company for survey and estimate of loss and M/s. Jhelum Investigating Privat