S.K. Kulshreshtha, J. (Oral):

1. This appeal and the appeals mentioned in the Schedule, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), raise a common question with regard to commencement of limitation for filing a complaint under the Act.

2. The period of limitation provided in the Act is contained in Section 24-A, which reads as follows :

"24-A. 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 sub-section (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.

From the above limitation it is clear that unlike many other statute, it provides for entertaining a complaint even beyond limitation, if a person satisfies the forum about the reason, which caused delay. The question in the present cases is as to whether the delay in the case of claim against the Insurance Company with regard to the amount of insurance will commence from the date mentioned in the statute or from the date of repudiation of claim. Learned Counsel for appellant has brought to our notice judgment of National Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. R. Piyarelall Import and Export Ltd., 2010 (1) CPR 58 (NC). In this case, the National Commission has held that the cause of action will arise from the date of repudiation of claim. The relevant discussion in this behalf is contained in Paragraph 6, which is extracted herein below:

"Firstly, that the complaint is bared by limitation. As per the appellants, the cause of action arose in 1996 whereas the complaint has been filed in the year 2000. We have seen the material on record and find that the consignments did arrive in Mumbai in the year 1996. The loss was assessed by the surveyor appointed by the appellant during the same year after which, the claim(s) were filed with the appellant corporation. Till date they have neither rejected the claim nor did accept the claim, except what was stated in the written version filed before the State Commission by the appellants. As per well-settled law, the cause of action will arise from the date of repudiation. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in this contention of the appellant. Till the time the claim preferred by the complainants were disposed off by the appellants, one way or the other, the cause of action would continue. In view of above we see no merit in this plea and it stands rejected.

3. This judgment of the National Commission clinches the issue but for the doubt expressed by the parties as to what would be the fate of a complaint which is brought several years after the commencement of limitation only on the basis that repudiation was subsequent to the date of limitation. We find that the date of limitation will commence from the date of repudiation, as held by the National Commission in the case of M/s. R. Piyarelall (supra), but that repudiation should be within the period of limitation. We may reiterate that we are dealing with a provision that itself provides for condonation of delay and permits the forum to entertain a case after the period of two years, if sufficient cause is shown. Under these circumstances we adopt the judgment in M/s. R. Piyarelall (supra), and hold that limitation will commence from the date of repudiation of claim but only if the repudiation is within the period of limitation. This will take care of creating awareness in the complainants about their rights to file complaint within two years from the date the cause of action arises.

4. Learned Counsel for respondent-Insurance Company has also referred to a decision of this Commission dated 14th December, 2009, passed in Appeal No. 1747/2009, Dasharath Bhumia v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, to the effect that provisions of Section 24-A cast a duty on a Consumer Forum to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date of cause of action.

5. It is a common ground in all the cases that in none of the cases there was repudiation by the Insurance Company to give additional period for commencement of limitation. We may also add that under the Scheme itself Clause 14 provides that the Insurance Company will decide the case within a period of 15 days and if it is not decided within the said period the Insurance Company will

be liable to pay interest @ 10%. In the case in hand the insured died on 17-5-2006 and the Nodal Officer has forwarded the complete claim form to the Insurance Company on 21-6-2006 and the Insurance Company had to settle the claim by 6-7-2006, from this date also the complaint filed on 17-9-2009 is barred by limitation. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we find that all the complaints, against which the appeals have been filed, are barred by limitation. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed. Appeal dismissed.