ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. The appellant-bank had taken out an insurance policy from the respondent to safeguard its interest and public funds from loss due to dishonest or criminal acts of its employees. 3. In 2008, it came to light that employees of the appellant-bank were involved in embezzlement of the bank’s funds to the tune of Rs.1,65,58,611.93/-. 4. With regard to the embezzlement FIR no.150 of 2008 dated 3.6.2008 came to be registered at Thikri Police Station and appellant-bank wrote letter to the Insurance Surveyor to settle the claim. Surveyor submitted a report on 16.1.2009 and assessed a net loss of Rs. 60,80,977/-. 5. Respondent did not finally settle the bank’s claim and called for further documents namely, original and certified copy of FIR and final report. Appellant-bank wrote to police to provide original final report. Superintendent of Police by letter dated 6.10.2010 informed the bank that investigation was in progress and it was not possible to provide final report. This was informed to the respondent vide letter dated 13.10.2010 and the latter was requested to settle the claim at the earliest. 6. Respondent failed to settle the claim finally but issued a demand draft of Rs.23,74,000/- which was received under protest by the appellant-bank. 7. On 27.4.2012 respondent wrote to the appellant-bank as follows:- “As on-account payment was releases for Rs.28,74,000/- on dated 23.3.2012. The claim is pending for final settlement as the Final Police Report is still awaited. We finally request you to send the above-mentioned document within 15 days of receipt of this letter, failing which, we shall be assume your disinterest in the claim and close it as no claim without any further communication.” 8. The appellant-bank again approached police for final report. On 20.6.2014 Superintendent of Police informed the bank as the principal accused was absconding investigation was still in progress and final report was not available. 9. In these circumstances, on 17.3.2015 the appellant-bank filed a complaint before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [‘Commission’ for short] alleging that the respondent has illegally refused to finally settle the claim and prayed that total claim of Rs.1,36,84,611.93/- along with 18% interest from 10.5.2008 be granted. 10. The respondent submitted reply inter alia contending that the complaint was time barred as it had not been filed within two years from the date the respondent closed the claim. 10. The respondent submitted reply inter alia contending that the complaint was time barred as it had not been filed within two years from the date the respondent closed the claim. It may not be out of place to note that finally on 30.11.2016 police submitted charge sheet against the employees of the appellantbank. Appellant-bank placed on record the charge sheet as additional evidence before the Commission [I.A. No.14709/2017]. When the matter was listed for final arguments on 24.8.2023, the Commission observed that the complaint is time barred and gave time till 11.1.2024 to file application for condonation of delay. 11. Such application was not filed and on 11.1.2024 the Commission by the impugned order held the claim of the appellant-bank was settled on 23.3.2012 and the complaint being filed on 16.3.2015 i.e. beyond two years was time barred. 12. Thereafter appellant-bank preferred three applications seeking recall of order dated 11.1.2024 [M.A. No.109 of 2024], praying for condonation of delay [I.A. No.2608 of 2024] and placing on record additional documents [I.A. No.2609 of 2024]. Vide impugned order dated 19.4.2024 all the applications were dismissed as non-maintainable. 13. Having heard submissions of the learned counsels and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view it is unlikely either receipt of demand draft dated 23.3.2012 or the letter dated 27.4.2012 can be said to be date of final settlement of the appellant’s claim. Even otherwise, assuming the letter dated 27.4.2012 finally closed the claim case there is ample material on record showing appellant-bank had waited for conclusion of the investigation and submission of final report till it filed the complaint in 2015. Police report finally came to be filed in 2016. 14. Given this situation, we hold, order dismissing the complaint as time barred is liable to be set aside and delay in preferring the complaint ought to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay and restore the complaint to the file of the Commission for disposal on merits. 15. The appeal(s) are allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.