Chatarpal Sharma son of Sh.Babu Lal, resident of 2044, Urban Vihar, Jawadi, Ludhiana.
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office Pune, through its General Manager/M.D.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Area Office, SCO147, Feroze @@@@hi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
O R D E R
1. This order shall dispose off an application moved by the opposite party for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of limitation.
2. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties on this application and also perused the record.
3. Complainant in auction conducted by opposite party on 11.4.2006 purchased a Maruti Zen Car for Rs. 2,20,000/-, which amount he immediately deposited with the opposite party. At the time of sale, opposite party assured the complainant to deliver him documents of the vehicle regarding ownership within few days, so that complainant may get the vehicle registered in his name. Thereafter, several times approached the opposite party with request to deliver the documents to which they paid no heed and ultimately refused to deliver such documents. Then he served legal notice dated 6.1.2009 but despite it they failed to deliver the documents to the complainant.
4. It is as such apparent from the pleadings of the complainant that the vehicle was purchased on 11.4.2006 and opposite party had promised to handover documents pertaining to ownership within few days. It means, cause of action accrued to the complainant in April 2006 and within few days thereof when ownership documents were to be given to him. But they despite his attempts failed to provide him documents. As per pleadings, they refused to deliver the documents and then served legal notice dated 6.1.2009. As such, cause of action had commenced to the complainant on 11.4.2008 and within few days thereafter. But this complaint was instituted on 27.2.2009 i.e. after three years of the purchase. Whereas this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action. No reasons have been given to explain the delay. Neither any prayer is made to condone the delay in filing the complaint.
5. It is as such clear that the complaint is barred by limitation being filed beyond limitation of two years. No reason has forth come to explain such delay in filing the complaint. Hence, we find merit in application of the opposite party and same is allowed. Consequently, complaint being time barred is dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.