PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER Ms. Seema N. Shah has filed the instant complaint against the Life Insurance Corporation of India and its functionaries alleging that her late husband Mr. Nirmal R. Shah an industrialist with the desire to obtain an insurance cover of Rs.50 Lakhs on his life deposited Rs.78,970/- with the opposite party insurance company on 23.4.2002 vide receipt No.5742. On 9.5.2002 late Shri Nirmal R. Shah produced himself for medical check-up under the supervision of the doctors of the opposite party No.1 and the panel of doctors found him to be fit and healthy. Shri Nirmal R. Shah again on 28.5.2002 produced himself for medical check-up by the opposite parties and his medical status was found to be normal and upto the mark as per the requirements. Thereafter, Shri Nirmal R. Shah was informed by the opposite party insurance company that his case for issue of insurance policy was being processed and he would soon be issued the insurance policy as well as the premium receipt. Thereafter, late Shri Nirmal R. Shah on many occasions contacted the concerned authorities of the opposite party No.1 regarding insurance policy and the premium details and he was always assured that as he had applied for a large insured amount, his proposal was under process. It is alleged that on 14.9.2002 morning Shri Nirmal R. Shah died due to heart attack. The intimation in this regard was given to the concerned branch office of the opposite party No.1 and the complainant was assured that the insurance claim would be paid shortly to the nominee of the deceased Shri Nirmal R. Shah. When no payment was received for quite some time, the complainant being the widow and legal heir of Shri Nirmal R. Shah communicated with the concerned authorities. The claim, however, was finally repudiated vide letter dated 31 st October, 2012 on the premise that as the requirements were not complied by the proposer, there was no acceptance of the proposal by the competent underwriting authority. Alongwith the repudiation letter the opposite party forwarded cheque of Rs.78,870/- dated 28 October, 2002 th against the proposal deposit paid by late Shri Nirmal R. Shah after deducting Rs.100/- towards medical fee. Feeling aggrieved by the repudiation of the insurance claim, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in the National Commission on 28.6.2005.

2. The opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint filed a joint written statement wherein the opposite party justified the repudiation of the claim. The opposite party also raised preliminary objections as to the limitation in the written statement filed on 16.5.2006.

3. Despite of the opposite party having taken preliminary objection as to limitation, the complainant kept on sleeping over the matter. However, at the stage of final arguments, the complainant has moved IA/4187/2016 seeking condonation of delay under Section 24A (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the issue of limitation and perused the record.

5. Learned Shri S.K. Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate appearing for the complainant has contended that the delay in filing of the consumer complaint is unintentional and the complainant was prevented from filing the consumer complaint within the prescribed period of limitation two years because at the relevant time the complainant had no means or support and was left to fend for herself. Otherwise also, because of sudden death of her husband, the complainant was suffering from mental trauma and financial crisis and she had gone into depression and because of the aforesaid financial and mental reasons, the complainant could not pursue her right in time.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the contrary has referred to Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and submitted that period of limitation for filing of consumer complaint is two years from the date of occurrence of cause of action. In the instant case the insurance claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 31 October, 2002. st Therefore, the cause of action for filing the consumer complaint arise on 31 October, 2002. st Thus, to be in limitation the consumer complaint ought to have been filed by 31 October, 2004 st whereas admittedly the consumer complaint has been filed on 28.6.2005, which delay is not explained. Thus, he has pressed for dismissal of application for condonation of delay and as a consequence dismissal of the complaint as barred by limitation.

7. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with period of limitation for filing the consumer complaint and it reads as under:

24A . (l) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Limitation period. - 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 (l), 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 Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

8. On reading of the above, it is clear that consumer Fora is mandated not to admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. Clause 2 of Section 24A, however, makes an exception and confers on the consumer Fora to condone the delay in filing of the consumer complaint if sufficient cause for filing the complaint is shown.

9. On perusal of record it transpires that the insurance claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 31 October, 2002 and alongwith the repudiation letter cheque st for refund of premium was also sent. This letter was responded to by the complainant vide her letter dated 14.11.2002 vide which the complainant had refused to accept the cheque for refund. Thus, it is clear that at least before 14.11.2002 the complainant had received the repudiation letter. Therefore, cause of action for challenging the repudiation arose on or before 14.11.2002. If the limitation is computed from 14.11.2002, the consume complaint should have been filed within two years from that date i.e. 14.11.2004. Thus, it is clear that the consumer complaint has been filed at least with a delay of 224 days.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant has taken us through the record and pointed out that after the receipt of repudiation letter the complainant pursued the matter with the opposite party and vide letter dated 15.3.2003 the opposite party had informed the complainant that the competent authority had re-examined the case and found that the insurance company is not liable to make any payment pursuant to the insurance proposal of the deceased Shri Nirmal R. Shah as already conveyed vide letter dated 31 October, 2002. It is argued that as the matter was st re-examined the limitation should be computed w.e.f. 15.3.2003.

11. Even if the contention of learned counsel for the complainant is accepted, then also in order to be within limitation the consumer complaint ought to have been filed latest by 15.3.2005. Thus, it is obvious that the complaint filed on 28.6.2005 is barred by limitation, if computed from the earlier date of repudiation i.e. 14.11.2002, by 224 days and if computed w.e.f. 15.3.2003, by 104 days.

12. The law relating to condonation of delay is well settled. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa , it has been observed; Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361

It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant

. In Apex Court has R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 observed as follows: W e hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.

13. On reading of the above, it is clear that law relating to condonation of delay is well settled. The delay in filing of the consumer complaint cannot be condoned as a matter of routine. The complainant in order to succeed on his application for condonation of delay is required to explain each and every day of delay to the satisfaction of the Court. Thus, the question which needs to be answered is whether the complainant has been able to give satisfactory explanation for delay in filing of the complaint after the expiry of two years period of limitation with a delay of atleast 104 days The complainant has given two fold explanation for the delay in filing of the complaint. Firstly, that she had financial constraint and secondly that due to the trauma caused by sudden death of her husband she went into severe mental depression and for that reason she was prevented from filing the complaint. The explanation given by the complainant after a lapse of 10 years from the date on which the plea of limitation was raised, is not satisfactory. Although according to the complainant she could not file the complaint in time as she was suffering from mental depression, no medical evidence in support of this plea has been produced. Similarly, the plea regarding financial crisis is also vague. No details regarding the assets and liabilities of the complainant at the time of death of her husband has been given. It appears that above noted plea of financial crisis and medical reason has been taken by the complainant on an after thought and the instant application for condonation of delay has been moved in order to escape the plea of limitation taken by learned counsel for the opposite party in his part submissions at the final stage.

14. In view of the above, we find that the complainant has failed to give satisfactory explanation for delay in filing of the complaint. Accordingly we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing of the complaint, that too on the basis of application filed almost a decade after the plea of limitation was taken by the opposite party in his written statement filed in the year 2006.

14. In view of the discussion above, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As a consequence, the complaint is also dismissed as barred by limitation. ......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER