Krishna Singh & ANR.
Vs. L.I.C. of India, Mumbai & Ors.  INSC 178 (28 January 2009)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2002 Krishna Singh & Anr. ..
Appellant(s) Versus L.I.C. of India, Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondent(s) ORDER
In this appeal, the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi, (for short, `the National Commission') is in challenge.
By the impugned order, the National Commission had rejected the compliant filed
on behalf of the appellants on the ground of limitation. According to the
National Commission, there was a delay of about 12 years in filing the
complaint before it.
Learned counsel for
the appellants, Shri Mukherjee urges that the National Commission has not
considered the application for condonation of delay and it had the power to
condone the delay under Section 24-A(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
We have seen the order. It is clear from the order that the National Commission
has gone through the application and has specifically found in the following
assuming the allegations to be correct the insured died in 1988 and this
complaint filed on 31.10.2001 is barred by limitation. An application has been
filed seeking condonation of delay but there is no sufficient cause mentioned
as why there is delay of over 12 years."
It suggests that the
National Commission specifically went through the question of limitation. The
Commission undoubtedly has referred to some other facts regarding the original
policy holder Anil Kumar Singh, being a fictitious person and there being
disputes about his very existence.
submits that in that case, the National Commission should have waited for the
outcome of the C.B.I. inquiry, which is in progress. We do not think so. The
National Commission had the jurisdiction to consider the complaint as well as
the condonation of delay application and the National Commission has given good
reasons to reject the complaint on the basis of towering delay of 12 years. We
also cannot forget the fact that the National Commission has referred to other
allegations only by way of additional reasons. However, the National Commission
has essentially ..3/- C.A. 549/2002...Contd..
application on the ground of limitation. We do not find any reason to interfere
with the matter.
The appeal is
dismissed without any order as to costs.
V.S. SIRPURKAR ]
[ R.M. LODHA ]