Delhi

New Delhi

CC/538/2017

South Eastern Carrier Pvt.Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Nov 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                                              (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

       ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

            NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./538/2017                                         Dated:

         In the matter of:

          M/s South Eastern Carrier Pvt. Ltd.,

          Having its Regd. Office at:

           2^nd Floor, 6 Marquis street,

           Opp. Yamuna Cinema,

           Kolkatta-700016,  

           West Bengal.

 

            Also Corporate Office at:

            SCO-44, Old Judicial Complex,

            Civil Lines,

            Gurugram, Haryana.

 …… Complainant

Versus

M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Ltd.,

LDLF Industrial Estate, 2^nd Floor,

Near Moti Nagar Metro Station,

Moti Nagar,

New Delhi-15.

 ……. Opposite party

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that  the complainant obtained fidelity guarantee cover from the OP vide policy No.0G-08-1113-3310-0000019 valid for a period of  one year i.e. 18.8.2007 to 17.8.2008 for an insured amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and the policy bearing No. 0G-09-1113-3310-00000028 valid for a period of  one year i.e. 23.9.2008 to 22.9.2009  for an insured amount of Rs.75,00,000/-.  The present complaint was filed against wrongful repudiation of the claim of the complainant’s Co. by the OP wherein the complainant has sought a claim of Rs.14,09,097/- towards the loss occurred on account of misappropriation fraud and mis-representation of complainant’s fund by its employee namely Bhupender Bahadur Singh on 11.9.2008.  The complainant after deducting the amount of Rs.1,16,000/- already recovered from the employee claimed only a sum of Rs.12,09,097/- from the OP. Bhupender Bahadur Singh assured the complainant that he would deposited a sum of Rs.8.75 lacs in the complainant’s account at the earliest but he ran away from complainant’s office on 5.12.2008 and never reported the office thereafter, as such, the complainant’s Co.  lodged a complaint with local police on 8.12.2008 vide police diary No.553-5P/08 after detailed investigation, chargesheet was filed by the police on 23.5.2009.  Since the illegal acts of fraud were carried out by Bhupender Bahadur Singh during the terms of the insurance policy issued by the OP, the aforesaid fact was also reported to the OP well within time.

 

2.    OP appointed the surveyor, who filed the final survey report dt. 24.2.2010 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.3,37,831/- and after adjusting Rs.1,16,000/-(recovered) it comes to be Rs.2,21,831/-. Thereafter, the OP Co. vide its letter dt. 28.8.2010 illogically assessed the claim to the tune of Rs.87,593/- and repudiated the remaining claim of the complainant despite the fact that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,37,831/-   Thereafter, the complainant sent various letters dt. 8.10.2010 and 29.9.2012 thereby requesting the OP to re-consider the  claim  but all in vain.  The complainant also sent reminder letter dt. 18.7.2013 to the agent of OP Co. but is of no use.  Finally, vide letter dt. 5.9.2013, the OP Co. rejected the claim on the earlier stand.  The complainant sent a legal notice dt. 17.10.2013 to the  OP but despite receiving the same the OP neither replied nor complied the same, complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

 

3.     Initially, complainant filed the present complaint before Ld. District Forum, Gurugram vide consumer complaint No.237/2015.  At a later stage, the hon’ble Forum raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction and after hearing the parties, the complainant withdrew the consumer complaint with liberty to approach the appropriate Forum at Delhi vide order dt. 13.9.2017.

 

4.     Complaint has been contested by OP. OP has strongly challenged the issue of limitation in its preliminary objection at Para-3, hence needs to be decided first.  It is stated that the claim of the complainant stood repudiated vide repudiation letter dt. 28.8.2010.  In the letter dt. 5.9.2013, it has been specifically mentioned that on 28.8.2010, the claim was repudiated and closed in the record of OP Co.  Letter dt. 5.9.2013, is not afresh repudiation letter, it is the reiteration of previous repudiation, hence, the cause of action accrued on 28.8.2010 and the first complaint was filed before Gurugram Consumer Forum in the year 2015.  The complaint stand barred under limitation.   

5.     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

6.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

As per section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : -

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 subsection (1). A complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the state commission or the National Comission , 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 , the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be records its reason form condoning such delay.

7.     On the point of limitation, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case title State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agriculture Industries 2009 STPL 6945 SC – in that case in para 12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

“As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merit 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 reason recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer Fora to take notice of section 24 A and give effect to it.

8.     In the present complaint the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 28.8.2010.  Thereafter, the complainant sent a letter dt. 8.10.2010 and 29.9.2012 to the OP Insurance Co. to re-consider the claim but the OP Co. vide letter dt. 5.9.2013 informed the complainant that they have already conveyed the repudiation vide letter dt. 28.8.2010 and closed the claim in their record.  Hence, in our view, the letter dt. 5.9.2013 does not bear the accrual of cause of action as alleged by the complainant.

9.     In view of the above discussion and the judgment cited above,  we are of the considered opinion that the cause of action for filing the present complaint accrued vide letter dated 28.8.2010,  the first complaint was filed before the CDRF Gurugram in the year 2015 and present complaint was filed on 24.11.2017 i.e. beyond the period of 2 years of the accrual of cause of action.    If the OP Insurance Co. is not settling the claim of the complainant, the complainant ought to have approached us well within time, which it failed to do so.  The complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. We find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

 This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on  15/11/2019.

 

      (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

  PRESIDENT

                                              (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                 (H.M. VYAS)

                                                    MEMBER                                                                MEMBER