PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 1.6.2011 passed by Learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 2297 of 2002- Oriental Insurance Company Limited VS. M/s. Rugs India, by which while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant-Petitioner availed insurance policy for his business premises covering stock, building, machinery, godown etc. During the currency of policy, fire took place on 13.11.1998 which caused loss of Rs. 65.00 lacs. Complainant informed Opposite Party-Respondent and surveyor was appointed who assessed loss of Rs. 34,31,558/- on depreciating value and Rs. 38,85,670/- on re-instatement basis. Opposite Party paid amount of Rs. 34,31,558/- after deducting amount of Rs. 2,41,056/- on account of short premium and premium for re-instatement and rest of the loss was not paid. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party, Complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite Party resisted complaint and submitted that Complainant accepted balance amount as full and final settlement of the claim and in such circumstances, complaint was not maintainable. It was, further, submitted that complaint was time barred and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum, after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed Opposite Party to pay Rs. 2,20,000/- with 12% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs. 4500/- on account of negligent services and a sum of Rs. 3300/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by Opposite Party was allowed by Learned State Commission by the impugned order and complaint was dismissed being barred by limitation against which this Revision Petition has been filed. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Learned State Commission committed error in treating complaint as barred by limitation and dismissing complaint, hence, Revision Petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to State Commission for disposal of appeal on merits. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, Revision Petition be dismissed. It is an admitted case of the parties that fire took place on 13.11.1998 and matter was settled between the parties on 21.6.1999 and Complainant received the amount as full and final settlement. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that complaint was within time from reinstatement and from notice and Learned State Commission erroneously held the complaint as barred by limitation. I do not agree with the submission because Complainant accepted payment on 21.6.1999 and for rest of the amount, complaint should have been filed before 21.6.2001 whereas complaint was filed on 15.2.2002 which was clearly barred by limitation and Learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing complaint as barred by limitation. Learned Counsel for Petitioner could not place any document on record to prove that extension was granted by Respondent for filing claim. As per Clause 4 (iii) of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Co. was not liable for any loss or damage after expiration of 12 months from the happening of loss or damage unless the claim is the subject of pending action or arbitration. Admittedly, fire took place on 13.11.1998 and complaint was filed on 15.2.2002 i.e.after almost three years and three months whereas complaint should have been filed within a period of twelve months from the date of loss. In such circumstances, complaint was time barred. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that Respondent appointed 2nd surveyor presuming the claim within limitation. Merely because 2nd surveyor was appointed by the Respondent, limitation does not get extended automatically. Learned Counsel for Petitioner, further, submitted that complaint has been filed within two years from the date of re-instatement i.e. 9.6.2000, hence, complaint may be treated in limitation. Admittedly, fire took place on 13.11.1998 and re-instatement was permissible only within one year from the date of incident whereas re-instatement has been done after more than 18 months. In such circumstances, no claim was payable under the Policy on re-instatement basis. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. | 
