ORDER Hon'ble Justice B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral) This is insurer's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 10.09.2009 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli in consumer complaint No. 20 of 2008. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party- appellant to pay insured sum of Rs. 2,93,200/- to the complainant together with interest @6% p.a from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle No. UA11-0391. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party- The New India Assurance Company Limited for the period from 04.08.2005 to 03.08.2006 at an IDV of Rs. 2,93,220/-. On 06.01.2006, the vehicle met with an accident and fell into a deep ditch below 400 mts. and was totally damaged. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was being driven by Sh. Rai Singh Rana, who was holding a valid and effective driving licence. The complainant informed the insurance company about the accident, who appointed surveyor Sh. Sushil Kumar Singh. The surveyor visited the site and conducted spot survey. The vehicle could not be retrieved from the ditch and this fact was brought to the knowledge of the insurance company. The insurance company, however, asked for estimate of repairs and for want of submission of estimate of repairs, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on 27.10.2006. thereafter the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Chamoli. 3. The appellant filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant was asked to submit the estimate of repairs, but he did not submit the same. It was also pleaded that the consumer complaint is not legally maintainable. The insurance company also alleged that it has not made any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the complainant. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 10.09.2009 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 10.09.2009 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has, first of all, vehemently stressed on the point that the consumer complaint being time barred was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident in this case took place on 06.01.2006, while the consumer complaint was filed on 21.07.2008. therefore, the consumer complaint is clearly time barred as it was filed after a period of more than two years. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the cause of action would arise on the date of accident and not on the date of repudiation of the claim. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I); II (2009) CPJ 29(SC). 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent- complainant has submitted that as per the settled law, the cause of action will arise from the date of repudiation of the claim and further that till the time, the claim preferred by the complainant was disposed of by the insurance company, one way or the other, the cause of action would continue. In support of his submission, learned counsel for respondent cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another Vs. R. Piyarelal Import & Export Ltd.; I (2010) CPJ 22 (NC). He has also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.P. State Forest Company Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) CPJ 1 (SC). Learned counsel for respondent has also cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kandimalla Reghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another; III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC). 8. We have carefully gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their contention. Ltd. (2009) CPJ 1 (SC). Learned counsel for respondent has also cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kandimalla Reghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another; III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC). 8. We have carefully gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their contention. We are of the view that the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant does not have any relevance with the facts and circumstances of the present case, for the reason that firstly in the instant case, no plea with regard to the limitation has been taken by the insurance company- appellant at the first instance, i.e., in the written statement filed by the insurance company before the District Forum. The plea with regard to the Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the party who pleads the plea with regard to the limitation, has to make a foundation for the same at the first instance. In the instant case, when the appellant did not take this stand before the District Forum by taking the specific plea with regard to the limitation, then at the stage of appeal, the insurance company can not be permitted to take the said plea without giving an opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence in this regard before the District Forum. The second reason for non-agreeing with the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the reported case, the bank did not return the documents by 07.06.1994 and it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the cause of action accrued on 07.06.1994 and the consumer complaint filed on 05.05.1997 was held to be time barred. While in the instant case, the accident took place on 06.01.2006 and the claim was repudiated on 27.10.2006 and the consumer complaint was filed on 21.07.2008, i.e., within a period of two years from the date of repudiation of the claim. It is a settled law that cause of action arises from that date of repudiation of the claim. Even otherwise, as also stated above, no such plea was taken by the District Forum at the first instance, i.e., in the written statement filed by the insurance company before the District Forum. 9. It is a settled law that cause of action arises from that date of repudiation of the claim. Even otherwise, as also stated above, no such plea was taken by the District Forum at the first instance, i.e., in the written statement filed by the insurance company before the District Forum. 9. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for respondent apply in the instant case with full force. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another (supra), has clearly ruled that the cause of action will arise from the date of repudiation of the claim. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made above, we are of the view that the plea with regard to the point of limitation raised by the learned counsel for the appellant at this stage, is devoid of any force. 10. The second aspect of this matter is that the factum of accident if not disputed by the insurance company. The record reveals that on 06.01.2006, the vehicle in question fell in a ditch which was about 400 mts. deep. As per the complainant, the place where the vehicle had fallen down, it was not possible to retrieve the vehicle and take out the salvage. It is clear that the vehicle in question was insured at an IDV of Rs. 2,93,220/- for the period from 04.08.2005 to 03.08.2006. Therefore, it is quite clear that when the accident took place, the vehicle was insured with the insurance company. As such, by repudiating the claim of the complainant, the insurance company has certainly committed deficiency in service. The District Forum has rightly observed that the complainant is entitled for the amount at which the vehicle was insured together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses. But we feel that the District Forum has failed to consider this aspect that the insurance company is entitled to deduct the value of the salvage or in the alternative, it is the duty of the complainant to return the salvage of the vehicle to the insurance company after retrieving the same. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses. But we feel that the District Forum has failed to consider this aspect that the insurance company is entitled to deduct the value of the salvage or in the alternative, it is the duty of the complainant to return the salvage of the vehicle to the insurance company after retrieving the same. Since in the present case, it is not possible for the complainant to retrieve the vehicle from the deep ditch and to hand over the salvage to the insurance company, as is evident from the material available on record, it would be in the interest of justice that some lumpsum amount should be deducted towards the value of the salvage. In the instant case, there is nothing on record on the basis of which the exact value of the salvage could be assessed. Hence we can only assume the value of the salvage and keeping in view that totality of the circumstances of the case, we assess the value of the salvage as Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, the insurance company is liable to pay sum of Rs. 2,43,200/- (Rs. 2,93,200/- minus Rs. 50,000/-) to the complainant together with interest and litigation expenses, as awarded by the District Forum. The appeal, thus, succeed partly and is to be allowed accordingly. 11. In view of above, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 10.09.2009 of the District Forum and the appellant- insurance company is directed to pay sum of Rs. 2,43,220/- to the complainant- respondent together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs, as awarded by the District Forum. However, costs of the appeal made easy.