Saikia, C J. 1. Heard Mr. N.H. Khuroo, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Noor-ul-Amin, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Srinagar has preferred this Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal (for short 'the Appeal'), questioning the validity and legality of the judgment and order dated 5.8.2009 rendered by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') in Complaint No. 12/2004, which was preferred by the respondent. 3. The case in brief, projected by the respondent before the Commission, is that he owned two storeyed house with Attic having been used both for residential and commercial purposes, situated at the main market of the town of Sopore known as "Chota Bazar". A shop was also running in the said premises. The said house had a cover of insurance policy for Rs. 6.00 lacs and household articles lying there were insured for Rs. 1.00 lac. Number of the Insurance Policy was 23421/11/94/000457 and it was being in force when the incident took place on 27.11.1993. 4. There was on 27.11.1993, an Army encounter between the militants and the security forces and the insured house of the respondent in question along with some other houses situated in the locality fell within the range of cross-firing, as a result of which the fire broke out engulfing the buildings of the surrounding area includ­ing the house of the respondent. 5. The respondent immediately reported the incident to the appellant and, accordingly, the claim was registered under Claim No. 23420/11/94/00082 and the appellant deputed Mr. Farooq Ahmad Dar as preliminary surveyor for preliminary inspection and verification vide letter dated 6.12.1993. On the same day, i.e., 6.12.1993, the appellant deputed Sh. Paramjeet Singh as Final surveyor to conduct final survey and assessment of the loss suffered by the respondent. Both the surveyors visited the spot of occurrence, took photographs and also took measure­ment of the affected premises and asked the respondent to submit various docu­ments in support of his claim which documents include copy of FIR, copy of final police report, estimate of loss along with the site plan, revenue extracts in order to establish the insurable interest of the respondent in the said property. 6. 6. In the complaint, it is alleged that the respondent provided full support and cooperation to the said surveyors by submitting the requisite documents which include interim police report dated 25.1.1994, final police report dated 23.7.1996 issued by SSP Baramulla respectively besides copy of estimate of loss along with site plan and copy of revenue extracts. 7. It is further alleged that during the whole process, the respondent remained in close touch with the surveyor of the Company, but actually it was the surveyor who delayed the submission of his survey report on one pretext or the other and finally, in the year 1996, the surveyor conveyed to the respondent that he had submitted his survey report and had recommended an amount of Rs. 4,97,440/-and advised him to pursue the claim in the office of appellant. 8. Accordingly, the respondent approached the office of the appellant in the month of April, 1996 and claim of the respondent for an amount of Rs. 4,97,440/-was approved and in this regard a communication dated 12.4.1996 was addressed to the respondent, along with which the appellant had annexed a discharge voucher which the respondent was asked to return after its execution. The respondent executed the same after signing the same and submitted it to the appellant for the settlement of his claim. After which the respondent was given dates for settlement and receipt of cheque. But the respondent despite repeated visits till September/Oc­tober 1996 did not get any thing and instead he was conveyed by the appellant that the CBI raided the office of the appellant and seized the record pertaining to his claim any he was asked to wait till the files were returned. Thus the respondent had no option but to visit the appellant's office time and again only to get oral assurances whereas practically his claim was not settled at all. 9. Then it was in the year 1999, the respondent was informed that the file has been received back from the CBI agency and the appellant has deputed Jehlum Investigating Service Private Limited to investigate his claim and, accordingly, he was further asked to wait for further period of time for settlement of his claim subject to the investigation report of the above named agency. It was in the year 2000 that the appellant handed over him a photo copy of the investigating report with the endorsement that his claim has been found genuine and, accordingly, he was again asked to wait for some more time to make the payment to him till the Company got funds from its Regional office. 10. It is submitted that when his claim was not settled up to 2003, the respon­dent in the month of April, 2003 submitted an application to the appellant request­ing for settlement of his claim on the ground that the he was put to financial, physical, mental, social loss, harassment and torture and on this, the appellant vide its letter dated 7.4.2003 informed the respondent that his claim file was not existing in the list of outstanding claims of the appellants and, accordingly, the respondent was requested to cooperate with the appellant for settlement of his claim waiting for a further period of time. 11. The respondent has prayed that, since the appellant has unnecessarily delayed the claim, not only he but his whole family has been put to a severe mental, physical, financial and social loss and harassment and, as such, besides adequate compensation, he has also demanded interest against the amount payable to him in terms of surveyors report and subsequent approval of claims. 12. The respondent has prayed that he has a recurring cause of action against the appellant, as his claim petition was still pending with appellant till the date of presentation of complaint before the Commission, and moreso same has arisen on 7.4.2003, when the appellant had conveyed vide letter dated 7.4.2003 that the appellant was trying to lay its hand on his claim file, which clearly authenticates that there was no lapse on his part regarding delay and latches, if any. However, the respondent had prayed before the Commission to condone the delay, if any : found. 13. The ultimate prayer of the respondent before the Commission is to pass decree directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 4,97,440/- along with 18% interest from the date of loss till the final settlement of the claim, with a further prayer of grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2.00 Lac for mental, physical, financial and social loss, harassment and torture plus litigation expenses to the tune ofRs.20,000/-. 14. 4,97,440/- along with 18% interest from the date of loss till the final settlement of the claim, with a further prayer of grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2.00 Lac for mental, physical, financial and social loss, harassment and torture plus litigation expenses to the tune ofRs.20,000/-. 14. The Commission after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having relied upon the interim order dated 11.10.2004 as well as letter dated 7.4.2003 (Annexure-H annexed with the complaint petition), came to the finding that though the incident was occurred on 27.11.1993, the appellant failed to settle the claim till 7.4.2003 and, accordingly, allowed the claim holding that the respondent was entitled to re-imbursement by the appellant of the loss to the extent of Rs. 4,4,97,440/- with interest at the rate of r % per annum from date of loss till the date of final payment. It was also held that the respondent was entitled to get litigation feeofRs. 10,000/-. 15. Above findings and observations recorded in the impugned judgment have : been assailed by the appellant in the instant appeal. 16. Mr. Khuroo, learned counsel for the appellant, has put forward his limited arguments to the effect that in terms of Section 18-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumers Protection Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')/this complaint itself is time barred because Section 18-A (1) of the Act has clearly provided that the State Commission may not admit the claim unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action accrues. According to him, the cause of action has arisen herein on 27.11.1993 and the complaint was instituted before the Com­mission on 6.5.2004, after a lapse of 11 years and the said inordinate delay has also not been explained to get the protection under Section 18-A (2) of the Act, which provides that the complaint can be entertained after a period of two years as prescribed under Section 18-A(1) of the Act, if the complainant can satisfy the Commission, that he has sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within a period of two years. 17. 17. Advancing the alternative submission, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that if the Court is inclined to uphold the impugned judgment, slapping of interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of loss till the final payment, may be interfered with. According to him, if the payment of such interest is directed, the appellant, being a public undertaking, shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. 18. Supporting the impugned judgment and order, Mr. Amin, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that the plea of complaint being time barred has already been decided by the Commission by its interim order dated 11.10.2004 while entertaining the preliminary objection raised by the appellant as regards the non-maintainability of the complaint on the ground of being time barred. The said interim order was passed after hearing the learned counsel for both the par ties and the Commission, on being satisfied, held that the complaint was not time barred and, at this stage, the said issue cannot be again reopened in this appeal. 19. As regards the payment of interest of 9% per annum from the date of loss till the final payment as ordered by the Commission, learned counsel for the respondent, referring to paragraph Nos. 9 and 11 of his claim petition, has con- tended that although he had immediately informed as regards the incident of fire to the appellant, his claim was not settled till 2003. It was only on 7.4.2003, the appellant informed the complainant/respondent that his claim file was not existing in the list of outstanding claims of the opposite party and, accordingly, the respon­dent was requested to cooperate with the appellant for settlement of the claim waiting for another period of time. 20. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the delay in the settlement of the insurance claim was not from the side of the respondent, rather it was the appellant, who has caused the delay and latches in settling the claim. Under such circumstances, no illegality was committed by the Commission in awarding the interest at the rate of 9% per annum, as '.ready mentioned above. 21. Mr. Amin, learned counsel for the respondent has basically relied upon paragraph Nos. 9 and 11 of his claim petition, which read as under: "9. Under such circumstances, no illegality was committed by the Commission in awarding the interest at the rate of 9% per annum, as '.ready mentioned above. 21. Mr. Amin, learned counsel for the respondent has basically relied upon paragraph Nos. 9 and 11 of his claim petition, which read as under: "9. That from the date the complainant was conveyed by the opposite party that the his claim file has been seized by CB1 agency from the office of opposite party, the complainant used to visit the office of opposite party almost every month but the complainant used to get only assurances but his claim was not settled at all. It was only in the year 1999 when on a usual visit of the complainant, the opposite party conveyed to the complainant that the opposite party has received back the claim file from CBI agency but the opposite party has deputed Jehlum Investigating Service Private Ltd. To investigate the claim of the complainant and accordingly the complainant was asked to wait for further time for settlement of his claim subject to the investigation report of above named agency. Right from 1999 till date the complainant is continuously pursuing his claim in the office of opposite party and it was in the year 2000 that the opposite party has provided a photocopy of investigation report to the complainant with the further message that the claim of the complainant has been found genuine and accordingly the complainant was requested by the opposite party to wait for some time till the company gets funds from its regional office. Copy of investigation report is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-G. The com­plainant, as such, was left with no option but to leave the settlement of his claim on the mercy of opposite party but when his claim was not settled even upto 2003, the complainant in the month of April, 2003 submitted an application to the opposite party requesting that his claim be settled as the complainant has already been put to financial, physical, mental and social loss, harassment and torture and it was in response to this application that the opposite party vide letter dated 7.4.2003 informed the complainant that his claim file is not existing in the list of outstanding claims of the opposite party and accordingly the complainant was requested to cooperate with the opposite party for settlement of his claim waiting for a further period of time. Coy of letter dated 7.4.2003 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-H. 11. That the claim of the complainant is still pending with the opposite party and till date same has not even repudiated by the opposite party nor any communication regarding disclaimer of the same has been issued to the complainant by the opposite party, as such, the complainant has a contin­uing cause of action against the opposite party and moreso same has arisen to the complainant on 7.4.2003 when the opposite party has conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 7.4.2003 that they are trying to lay their hands on the claim file of the complainant. The complaint of the complain­ant, as such, is within time and there is no latches or delay in filing the same, however, if this Hon'ble Commission comes to the conclusion that there is any delay or latches in filing the present complaint, same be condoned in the interests of justice and under the circumstances submitted hereinabove. 22. Having given due consideration to the extensive arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and also on meticulous examination of the records, particularly, the communication dated 7.4.2003 (Annexure-H) as well as order dated 11.10.2004, we unhesitatingly say that complaint was not time barred in terms of Section 18-A, which reads as under: "18-A, Limitation period (1) The Divisional Forum or the State Commission may not admit a com­plaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arises. (2) Notwithstanding any thing contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1) if the complainant satisfies the Divisional Forum or the State Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the Divisional Forum or the State Commission, as the case may be, records its reason for condoning such delay." 23. In passing order dated 11.10.2004, the Commission has relied upon the communication dated 7.4.2003, which has been annexed as Annexure-H to the complaint and the same reads as under: - "Without prejudice Dt 7/4/2K3 Mr. Abdul Gani Matoo S/o Late Haji Ab. Rehman Matoo R/o Khushal Matoo, "Main Bazar, Sopore (Kashmir) Dear Sir, Re: - Your Fire Ins. Cairn A/C Policy No. 11/94/00547 Claim No. 11/94/00082. This has reference to your letter dated 1.4.2003 and (sick) visit to our office with regard to above. In this connection kindly note that the said claim file is not presently available in the present list of its claims. We are trying to lay our hands on the old record for retrieving of the above claim for conveying you on action taken in this regard. Till then, kindly bear with us. Thanking you. Yours faithfully Sd/- Manager." 24. It would be relevant to quote the operative portion of interim order dated 11.10.2004 passed by the Commission, which reads as under: - "Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the record. It is the fact that the occurrence has taken place in 1993 but it is equally a fact that the complainant has been persuing the claim right from the date of loss. He has filed annexuers to prove that he was continuously persuing the claim. According to him OP first appointed Farooq Ahmed Dat as prelim­inary Surveyor. Thereafter Paramjeet Singh was appointed as final Sur­veyor who has assessed the loss in 1996. Thereafter OP has got the matter investigated in 1999 by Jehlum Investigators. He has filed the report on 30/9/1999, the Investigator also has recommended the claim to be genuine. After this the claim was not settled. Complaint filed/representation in 2003 in response of which the OP addressed a communication dated 7.4.2003 to the complainant that the claim filed is not traceable. He has filed the report on 30/9/1999, the Investigator also has recommended the claim to be genuine. After this the claim was not settled. Complaint filed/representation in 2003 in response of which the OP addressed a communication dated 7.4.2003 to the complainant that the claim filed is not traceable. It is only because of the dilly dalling tactics of OP that the complainant was made to run from pillar to post for the settlement of claim. For all these years complainant was every time given the impression that the claim is genuine as is apparent from approval letter dated 12.4.1996. We are convinced that the complaint is not BARRED BY TIME. OP can not be allowed to take the benefit of his dilly dalling tactics which he has applied for settling the claim so the preliminary issue is decided in favour of complainant and it is declared that the complaint is MAINTAINABLE. Complainant is directed to adduce the evidence." 25. It is admitted position that the interim order dated 11.10.2004 by which the preliminary objection preferred by the appellant was dismissed holding that the complaint was not barred by time, has not been assailed in any appropriate or higher forum and, as such, the said order has since attained finality, meaning thereby the complaint so filed by the respondent was not time barred in terms of Section 18-A of the Act. 26. That being so, we are in full agreement with the views expressed and findings recorded in this context by the Commission. 27. Having considered the order dated 11.10.2004, upon due consideration of the provisions of law laid down in Section 18-A of the Act as well as given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that the complaint filed before the Commission was not time barred. 28. Coming to the granting of interest of 9% per annum from the date of loss till the final payment is made, it is seen from the close perusal of the paragraph Nos. 9 & 11, as quoted above, that it was the appellant who took nine years to issue the letter dated 7.4.2003 requesting the respondent to cooperate with the appellant for settlement of the claim for a further period of time as his claim file could not be traced out in the list of outstanding claims. 29. 9 & 11, as quoted above, that it was the appellant who took nine years to issue the letter dated 7.4.2003 requesting the respondent to cooperate with the appellant for settlement of the claim for a further period of time as his claim file could not be traced out in the list of outstanding claims. 29. That being the position, we are disinclined to disturb the order passed by the Commission as regards payment of interest. 30. In view of what has been discussed, stated and observed above, in our considered view, this appeal is bereft of any merit and the same stands dismissed.