January 9, 2026 : The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bengaluru has declined to interfere with an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi, which had condoned a delay of seven years and twenty-eight days in filing a consumer complaint arising from a motor insurance claim. Dismissing the appeal filed by SBI General Insurance Company Limited, the State Commission held that the reasons furnished by the complainant were just and proper, and that the dispute deserved to be adjudicated on merits rather than being rejected at the threshold on the ground of limitation.
The appeal, registered as Appeal No. 2838/2024, was heard by a Bench comprising President Ravishankar and Member Sunita C. Bagewadi. The insurer had challenged the District Commission’s order dated 14 June 2024, by which the delay in filing the complaint was condoned and the complaint admitted for consideration.
The dispute relates to an own-damage motor insurance claim concerning a Ford Figo car bearing registration number KA-27-M-4761, owned by Kavita, a government servant. The vehicle was insured with SBI General Insurance Company Limited during the relevant policy period. After the vehicle suffered damage, the complainant lodged a claim with the insurer. As the claim was neither settled nor formally repudiated, the matter was referred in 2016 to the Permanent Lok Adalat.
The proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat did not result in a settlement. By an order dated 1 September 2018, the Lok Adalat permitted withdrawal of the proceedings with liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate forum for redressal. The original documents were directed to be returned to the complainant. Thereafter, in June 2024, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi, along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the consumer complaint. The District Commission allowed the application and admitted the complaint on the same day.
Aggrieved by this order, the insurance company approached the State Commission contending that the District Commission had mechanically condoned an inordinate delay without recording cogent reasons. The insurer relied on Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which prescribes a limitation period of two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action, and argued that the complaint was clearly time-barred.
After examining the certified copies of the order sheet, pleadings, and the sworn affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the State Commission noted that the complainant had been bona fide pursuing remedies before the Permanent Lok Adalat and had been expressly granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The Commission also took note of the affidavit filed by the complainant, which disclosed reasons for the delay, including the relaxation of limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The State Commission observed that there was no false or misleading statement made by the complainant explaining the delay in approaching the consumer forum. It further noted that the insurer had not assigned satisfactory reasons for not settling or repudiating the own-damage claim during the intervening period. In these circumstances, the Bench held that the District Commission had rightly accepted the reasons stated in the affidavit and had validly condoned the delay.
Holding that the matter required adjudication on merits, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and directed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to proceed with the complaint expeditiously, after affording both parties an opportunity to lead evidence and produce relevant documents.
Cause Title: SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kavita
Case No.: Appeal No. 2838/2024
Coram: President Ravishankar and Member Sunita C. Bagewadi
