Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd
The petitioner took Marine Insurance Policy from the respondent in respect of a Jack up Rig Friendly Dolphin-1. The insurance policy covered "loss of or damage to subject matter insured caused by perils of the sea and negligence of Master, Officers, Crew or Pilots". During the currency of the policy, the rig was towed by a tug named m.t. Gurpur" on a voyage from the Port of Nagapattinam to the Port of Chennai. When the rig reached the Port of Chennai, it was found that one of its legs had broken and fell into the sea. The petitioner informed the respondent about this incident on 12.10.1998. The Surveyor appointed by the respondent submitted report dated 25.3.2002 wherein the loss was quantified at Rs.19,85,468/-. However, the Surveyor also found that the petitioner was guilty of violating the terms of the policy. In view of the Surveyors report, the respondent vide its letter dated 30.10.2002, repudiated the claim lodged by the petitioner. For next two years, the petitioner entered into long correspondence with the respondent, but the latter declined to entertain the petitioners claim for compensation.On 25.5.2006, the petitioner filed Complaint No.288/2006, which was allowed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai (for short, the District Forum).The order of the District Forum was reversed by the State Commission, which opined that the complaint was barred by time and no application had been filed under proviso to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The National Commission expressed its agreement with the State Commission and held that the complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by time. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In our opinion, the reasons assigned by the State Commission and the National Commission for holding that the complaint was barred by time are correct. It is not in dispute that the claim made by the petitioner was repudiated by the respondent vide communication dated 30.10.2002 and the complaint was filed on 25.05.2006, i.e., after three years and five months of repudiation of the claim. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the complaint was barred by time. This view finds support from the judgments of this Court in HUDA vs. B.K.Sood (2006) 1 SCC 164 , S.B.I. vs. B.S.Agricultural Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121 , Kandimalla Raghavaiah vs. National Insurance Company (2009) 7 SCC 768 and V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) vs. Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53.
0[ds]In our opinion, the reasons assigned by the State Commission and the National Commission for holding that the complaint was barred by time are correct. It is not in dispute that the claim made by the petitioner was repudiated by the respondent vide communication dated 30.10.2002 and the complaint was filed on 25.05.2006, i.e., after three years and five months of repudiation of the claim. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the complaint was barred by time. This view finds support from the judgments of this Court in HUDA vs. B.K.Sood (2006) 1 SCC 164 , S.B.I. vs. B.S.Agricultural Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121 , Kandimalla Raghavaiah vs. National Insurance Company (2009) 7 SCC 768  and V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) vs. Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53.
### Instruction:
Predict the outcome of the case proceeding (1 for acceptance, 0 for rejection) and subsequently provide an explanation based on significant sentences in the proceeding.

### Input:
The petitioner took Marine Insurance Policy from the respondent in respect of a Jack up Rig Friendly Dolphin-1. The insurance policy covered "loss of or damage to subject matter insured caused by perils of the sea and negligence of Master, Officers, Crew or Pilots". During the currency of the policy, the rig was towed by a tug named m.t. Gurpur" on a voyage from the Port of Nagapattinam to the Port of Chennai. When the rig reached the Port of Chennai, it was found that one of its legs had broken and fell into the sea. The petitioner informed the respondent about this incident on 12.10.1998. The Surveyor appointed by the respondent submitted report dated 25.3.2002 wherein the loss was quantified at Rs.19,85,468/-. However, the Surveyor also found that the petitioner was guilty of violating the terms of the policy. In view of the Surveyors report, the respondent vide its letter dated 30.10.2002, repudiated the claim lodged by the petitioner. For next two years, the petitioner entered into long correspondence with the respondent, but the latter declined to entertain the petitioners claim for compensation.On 25.5.2006, the petitioner filed Complaint No.288/2006, which was allowed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai (for short, the District Forum).The order of the District Forum was reversed by the State Commission, which opined that the complaint was barred by time and no application had been filed under proviso to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The National Commission expressed its agreement with the State Commission and held that the complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by time. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In our opinion, the reasons assigned by the State Commission and the National Commission for holding that the complaint was barred by time are correct. It is not in dispute that the claim made by the petitioner was repudiated by the respondent vide communication dated 30.10.2002 and the complaint was filed on 25.05.2006, i.e., after three years and five months of repudiation of the claim. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the complaint was barred by time. This view finds support from the judgments of this Court in HUDA vs. B.K.Sood (2006) 1 SCC 164 , S.B.I. vs. B.S.Agricultural Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121 , Kandimalla Raghavaiah vs. National Insurance Company (2009) 7 SCC 768 and V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) vs. Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
In our opinion, the reasons assigned by the State Commission and the National Commission for holding that the complaint was barred by time are correct. It is not in dispute that the claim made by the petitioner was repudiated by the respondent vide communication dated 30.10.2002 and the complaint was filed on 25.05.2006, i.e., after three years and five months of repudiation of the claim. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the complaint was barred by time. This view finds support from the judgments of this Court in HUDA vs. B.K.Sood (2006) 1 SCC 164 , S.B.I. vs. B.S.Agricultural Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121 , Kandimalla Raghavaiah vs. National Insurance Company (2009) 7 SCC 768  and V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) vs. Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53.
