IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                  CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION                                      CIVIL APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2002   

 Krishna Singh & Anr. ..   Appellant(s)

                    Versus

L.I.C. of India, Mumbai & Ors. ..   Respondent(s)                                                           O R D E R

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 words :

..2/-

C.A. 549/2002...contd.

: 2 :

"Moreover, 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.   

Shri Mukherjee, 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..

: 3 :

rejected the 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.

                                       ...................J.            [ V.S. SIRPURKAR ]  

                                       ...................J.           [ R.M. LODHA ]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 28, 2009.