(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President)

This is complainant’s appeal against the order dated 03-03-2006 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli dismissing the consumer complaint no. 13/05 as being barred by time.

2. Complainant purchased insurance policy for his truck from New India Assurance Co. Ltd. During the period of insurance, truck met with an accident on 24-08-2000 in district- Chamoli. Claim preferred was repudiated on 04-06-2001. Complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun on 21-06-2001 but the same was dismissed on 03-07-2002 for want of territorial jurisdiction. Complainant preferred revision no. 5/2002 before the State Commission, Dehradun and the same was dismissed on 01-11-2002. Aggrieved by the order a revision was filed before the National Commission. Here also the plea of the complainant was not accepted and the revision was dismissed on 06-12-2004. Certified copy of the order of the National Commission was issued on 11.01.2005 as is evident from paper numbers 29 to 31. Consequently, complainant had to file consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Chamoli, Gopeshwar having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Insurance Company raised preliminary objection that the complaint is time barred. The District Forum by the order impugned accepted the plea by observing that the complaint had been filed after a delay of three months even after excluding the period during which the complainant proceeded with his complaint in the Consumer Forum without jurisdiction and the revision petitions before the State and the National commissions. It also observed that no formal application for condonation of delay was filed and further, that the complainant made no averment in the complaint so as to disclose sufficient cause and seeking condonation of delay.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record in the light of the legal aspect of the case. It need to be stated at outset that Sec. 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provide limitation period for a consumer complaint. It reads as under :-

“Limitation period – (1) 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 subsection (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 Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay”.

From above it is evident that application for condonation of delay need not to be given separately and sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed may be stated or given and the prayer for condonation of delay may be made in the consumer complaint itself. The argument to the contrary by the learned counsel for the respondent based on the legal provision of Order 41 Rule-3A of the Civil Court Procedure can not be made applicable here in as much as the rule itself mandates that a separate application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal has to be submitted. Therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.C. Chaudhary vs M/s Prestige Finance and Chit Fund Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1996 Delhi 382, is not applicable to the facts of the case.

4. It need to be stated that the District Forum took a correct view that the time during which the complainant was prosecuting earlier complaint and revisions before the State Commission and the National Commission may be excluded for computation of period of limitation. Exclusion of time of proceedings bona-fide in courts witho