rDCB •

A ;»>

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1280 OF 2017 (From the order dated 04.05.2017 in C C No. 06/2017 of the State C onsum er D isputes R edressal C om m ission C hhattisgarh )

Shivam Electronics (through Joint A ppellant (s)

P artners)

1. Sukhlal R ohra s/o Sh.S.N .R ohra

2. Sm t. Shobha R ohra w /o Sukhlal R ohra

3. Pankaj K um ar R ohra s/o S.l. R ohra all residents of m aharani H ospital R oad Jagdalpur, D istrict Bastar ( C G )

V ersus

1. State Bank of India R espondent(s)

Through Branch M anager SM E Branch, D haream pura R oad Jagdalpur,, D istrict Bastar ( C G )

2. State Bank of India G eneral Ins. Co. ltd.

Through M anager Pujari C ham bers, 4th Floor, Pachpedi N aka N ear Pujari Park, D ham tari R oad, R aipur, D istrict R aipur (C G )

3. State bank of India G eneral Ins. C o. ltd.

Through M anaging D irector ( G eneral M anager)

N atraj-101, 201, 301 Junction W estern Express H ighw ay Andheri Kurla R oad, Andheri East M um bai- 400 069 BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the A ppellant(s) M r. R K Bhawnani, A dvocate (VC )

For R-1 M r. C handrachur Bhattacharyya, Advocate For R -2 and R -3 M r.D .Varadarajan,Advocate (VC )

Dated : 09.03.2026 ORDERDCBA

1. H eard counsel for both sides.

2. O n 11.11.2025, follow ing orders w ere passed:

1. Heard counsel for the appellant.

2. Challenge is to the order dated 13.01.2026 of the State Commission vide which complaint has been dismissed on account of limitation having been filed with delay of 11 months. State Commission order records that complaint was filed on 17.01.2017 and the incident took place on 24.02.2014. Hence, according to the State Commission, complaint is time barred.

3. Under entry 44 (b) of the Limitation Act, in case of insurance cases, cause of action arises when claim is repudiated. In the present case, counsel for the appellant claims that claim was repudiated on 31.05.2016. Hence, according to him, complaint is not time barred. However, no such repudiation letter has been placed on record. Not only that, although the appellant claim that Surveyor Report is dated 23.02.2016, hence claim could not have been repudiated prior to this date but even surveyor report is not on record. Further, date of the claim with the insurance company is not clear and copy of such claim form is not available.

4. On the specific request of the counsel for the appellant, 2 weeks time is granted to the complainant to place on record copies of following documents:

a. Claim form made by him with the insurance company / bank (if it was through bank)

b. Copy of the Surveyor Report dated

23.02.2016.

c. Copy of the repudiation letterDCBdAated

31.05.2016 as claimed by him.

Copies of these documents should be

5.

simultaneously served on the respondents, who will have another one week time to file response, if any.

6. Cost imposed vide order dated 08.04.2025 on respondent no. 2 and 3 is waived after hearing the counsel.

List the matter on 13.01.2026 at 2.00 p.m.

7.

3. In com pliance of above stated order, appellant has filed certain docum ents fairly adm itting that he could not file copy of the repudiation letter dated 31.05.2016, copy of the surveyor report dated 23.02.2016 and claim form m ade by him . H ow ever, he subm its that these docum ents are w ith the insurance com pany and subsequent to this order, he m ade specific request under RTI to insurance com pany seeking these docum ents. H ow ever, he has not got any reply so far. H e has also draw n our attention to letter dated 29.09.2016 from the insurance com pany addressed to the A dvocate for the insured in w hich it is subm itted that surveyor report w as dated 23.02.2016 and claim w as repudiated on 31.05.2016. D uring the hearing, counsel for the insurance com pany fairly conceded that claim w as repudiated vide letter dated

31.05.2016.

4.

State C om m ission had dism issed the com plaint on account of lim itation having been filed w ith