IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 632 OF 2025 (Against the Order dated 08.01.2025 in Appeal RA/32/2023 and Order dated 16.05.2023 in FA/1125/2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)

W ith NC/IA/5040/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

1 BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

.

1226, RATAM G ANJ, M IRZAPUR, UTTAR PRADESH

2. BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

BRANCH BHADOHI UTTAR PRADESH Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. GANESH PRASAD GIRI S/O SRI PARASNATH G IRI, R/O KO TO G AO N P.S. RAM PUR DISTT.

JAUNPUR, UTTAR PRADESH-222001 Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the Petitioner(s) : M R YASHISH CHANDRA, AD V For the Respondent(s) : NO NE Dated : 11.09.2025

ORDER

1.

H eard Learned C ounsel for the Petitioners. N one appears for the R espondent. Keeping in view his continued absence despite service, R espondent is proceeded ex-parte on m erits.

2. A t the outset, the petitioner stated that the com plaint before the D istrict Forum w as barred by lim itation having been filed beyond tw o years from the date of accident. The counsel for petitioner vehem ently argued that the cause of action to count lim itation is the date of accident /'

w hich in the present case is 09.12.2013 and the com plaint w as filed in June 2016, w hich is beyond tw o years. H ow ever, w e are unable to accept such contention of the petitioner herein. Entry 44(b) of the schedule to the Lim itation Act w hich is produced below , clearly states that the lim itation w ill start from the date of the denial of the claim i.e., the date of repudiation, w hich in the present case is 08.04.2015. H ence, the com plaint filed in June, 2016 is w ell w ithin the lim itation and contention of the petitioner herein on this ground lacks m erit. The D istrict C om m ission w ent w rong in concluding that the com plaint w as barred by lim itation. Further, if the D istrict Forum concludes that the com plaint is barred by lim itation it is not expected to go further w ith the com plaint on m erits, but in the present case the D istrict C om m ission has also dism issed the com plaint on m erits as w ell. H ence, the D istrict C om m ission order suffers from a m aterial irregularities and has been rightly set aside by the State C om m ission in appeal.

3. The present R evision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Appellant against the order dated 08.01.2025 in R A No. 32 of 2023 and against the order dated 16.05.2023 of the State C om m ission U ttar Pradesh in FA No. 1125 of 2018. The R P has been filed w ith a I delay of 616 days as per calculations m ade by the R egistry of N C DR C and application seeking condonation of delay has been filed in w hich delay period m entioned is 608 days.

4. In order to condone the delay in filing the RP, the Petitioner has to satisfy this C om m ission that there w as sufficient cause for preferring the R P after the stipulated lim itation period. An IA No. 5040 of 2025 dated 14.10.2025 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. In the said IA, period of delay m entioned is 608 days and follow ing reasons for delay /

grounds for condonation have been m entioned:

(a)P etitioners had filed R eview Application No. 32/2023 against th