Per Yaqoob, J.;— 1. Instant appeal is directed against the order dated 16.06.2010 passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar. 2. Two residential buildings of the respondents were insured by the appellant Company- Insurer. The said buildings were allegedly set on fire by some unknown miscreants regarding which case FIR No. 275/97, Police Station, Shopian was registered on 28.09.1997. The period was covered by the insurance when the respondents were not indemnified by the Insurance Company, they filed the complaint before the J&K Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) on 22.06.2005. The claim petition was allowed by the Commission where under Rs. 2,00,843/- alongwith 8% interest per annum with effect from two months after the receipt of the surveyor's report dated 23.08.1999 till final payment was made. The cost of litigation is quantified at Rs. 6,000/-. Aggrieved thereby instant appeal has been filed as permissible under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. 3. During the course of arguments it was projected by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compliant was time barred as the cause accrued to the respondents on 28.09.1997, the complaint was filed on 22.06.2005 when the compliant was required to be filed within two years from the date cause of action accrued as prescribed under Section 18(A) of the Act. The learned Commission has not addressed the issue of limitation therefore, order impugned is not sustainable. 4. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. (2009) SCC 768. 5. In opposition learned counsel for the respondents contended that the issue is no more res-integra as the Division Bench of this Court while rendering judgment in case Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ghulam Mohd. Siraj reported in 1999 SLJ 235, has held that while a complaint which is allegedly time barred but is allowed, it is to be taken that the Commission has condoned the delay in the peculiar circumstances and the facts of the case and in the background of the extreme militancy and disturbed condition prevailing at that time. The occurrence in the said case was relatable to the period 1990-91. 6. The occurrence in the said case was relatable to the period 1990-91. 6. Considered the rival contentions, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court has to be followed which provides that the Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Central) provides the period of limitation which is in para-metria with Section 18(A) of the State Consumer Protection Act. 7. For brevity both the provisions are reproduced hereunder: "24-A Limitation Period - (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entered after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National 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 National Commission, State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay." "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 anything 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." 8. It shall be useful to quote para-17 of the judgment 2009 (7) SCC:- 17. Section 24-A of the Act bars any for a set up under the Act, from admitting a complaint, unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. It shall be useful to quote para-17 of the judgment 2009 (7) SCC:- 17. Section 24-A of the Act bars any for a set up under the Act, from admitting a complaint, unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The provision expressly casts a duty on the commission, admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen. Recently, in SBI v. B. S. Agriculture Industries (I) this court, while dealing with the same provision, has held (SCC P 125, Paras 11-12) "11......It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires the consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, 'shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24-A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder. 12......As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24-A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside." 9. What would emerge from the above is that when the plea of limitation is raised same has to be decided and in case delay in filing compliant is to be condoned, reasons are required to be recorded in writing. 10. What would emerge from the above is that when the plea of limitation is raised same has to be decided and in case delay in filing compliant is to be condoned, reasons are required to be recorded in writing. 10. Records of the Commission would reveal that the complainants(respon-dents) in para-8 have specifically pleaded that the claims of the complainants were not finalized and then in para-9 it has been also pleaded that they were not conveyed as to whether their claims are rejected or accepted; whereas in the objections filed by the appellants before the Commission it has been pleaded that the respondents were informed through registered letter dated 02.04.2002 that their claim has been closed as "no claim". 11. In the same context in para-8 of the preliminary objections it has been pleaded that the claim/complaint is hopelessly time barred. 12. In view of the specific rival pleadings vis-a-vis question of limitation, it is stated that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, learned Commission was required to decide the question of limitation but in the impugned judgment it has been simply observed that in the year 2002 the claim was closed as "no claim". After that complainant approached the Commission and filed the complaint on 22.06.2005. When it was so, admittedly complaint was filed after the prescribed period of two years. The Commission, therefore, was bound to address the issue by either condoning the delay for which reasons were to be recorded or otherwise to dismiss the complaint. 13. The question of limitation in the given set of circumstances, being the mixed question of fact and law, is better left, to be decided by the Commission, as a necessary corollary, on such count appeal succeeds. Order impugned dated 16.06.2010 is set aside. Case is remanded back to the learned Commission for deciding the matter afresh.