PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 4/2021

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Manish Agrawal, aged about 36 years,

S/O- Purusottam Agrawala,

R/O- Rengali, Po/Ps- Rengali,

Dist- Sambalpur.                                                           ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

45, 46 2nd Floor of Hotel Basera,

Ashok Nagar, Janpath,

Bhubaneswar-751009.                                         …………...Opp.Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. S.K. Mahapatra & Associates
2. For the O.P.                        :- Sri. B.K. Mahapatra & Associates

Date of Filing:12.01.2021,Date of Hearing :18.12.2023,Date of Judgement : 05.02.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The Complainant filed this complaint claiming damage of insured vehicle No. OD-15-D-3303 with O.P. for the policy No. 3379/01170633/000/00. On 28.05.2015 the vehicle meet an accident at Thelkoloi and claim No. 3379142451 was registered. The surveyor and loss assessor. Mr. Tripathy submitted assessment appraisal on 24.06.2015. The assessment was made Rs. 65,954/- in place of Rs. 1,31,847. After giving advocate notice also the O.P. remained silent. Being aggrieved complaint has been filed.
2. The O.P. in reply submitted that there is a depreciation clause in the policy which attracts the provision of settlement of any own damage claim by the insured. The surveyor assessed the liability of insured Rs,. 70,370/- to-wards full and final settlement of the claim against damage to the tune of Rs. 1,29,743/-. The Complainant was intimated and requested to submit the discharge voucher for release of the amount. No any discharge voucher submitted. The Complainant at para-6 submitted that correspondences made till 24.04.2019 by the insured. The limitation is counted from the date of cause of action. There is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Perused the documents filed by both the parties. The accident took place on 28.05.2015 and final survey report was submitted on 26.06.2015. From correspondences dated 19.04.2019, 22.04.2019 and 24.04.2019 it reveals that the O.P. has again and again raised question of limitation but the Complainant remained silent for more than three years. The Complainant has not explained why delay of more than 2 years caused from the date of final assessment i.e. 26.06.2015. The C.P. Act, 1986 bars the jurisdiction of the Commission after 2 years, when cause of action arose. The Complainant was filed on 12.01.2021 which is an extra-ordinary delay and accordingly claim is not maintainable. The complaint is dismissed. No cost.

              Order pronounced in the open court on 5^th day of Feb 2024.

              Supply free copies to the parties.