Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/121/2018

Shyam Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Suraj Joshi Adv. & Anu Sharma Adv.

01 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	121/2018
Date of Institution	:	27.02.2018
Date of Decision	:	01.10.2018

 

                                       

                                               

Shyam Lal aged about 60 years son of Sh.Lachman Dass r/o H.No.207, Gate No.4, Kharag Mangoli, Old Panchkula, Tehsil and District Panchkula.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1.     The National Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.332-334, 1-2-3 Floor, Sector 34-A,Chandigarh

 

2.     The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office 3, Milton Street, Post Box No.9229, Calcutta through its Authorized Signatory.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by      

 

                Sh.Rajinder Pandey, Adv. for the complainant

                Sh.Nitin Gupta, Adv. for the OPs.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the vehicle make Bolero Mahindra & Mahindra bearing registration No.HR-68-A-0322 of the complainant insured with the OP vide insurance policy (Annexure C-3) for the period from 16.09.2013 to 15.09.2014  was stolen in the intervening night of 23/24.01.2014  from the shop of Baljinder Body Maker,  Lalru where he went for getting the body of the vehicle fixed.  He immediately reported the matter to the Police Station Lalru as well as the OPs.  Thereafter, FIR No.16 dated 08.02.2014 under Section 379 IPC was lodged by the Police after conducting the investigation.  It has further been averred that after receipt of the FIR, he submitted the claim with the OPs along with the requisite documents and replied to the letters sent by the OPs.  It has further been averred that the OPs demanded the non-tracing report for passing the claim and he visited the police on various occasions to receive the same but the same was issued on 11.05.2017 after completing the investigation in the matter. After receipt of the non-traceable report, he submitted the same with the OPs on 15.05.2017. Subsequently, the OPs kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other.  According to the complainant, the OPs have repudiated the claim/close the file by giving the remarks as “claims repudiated due to no reply from insured”.  It has further been averred that the official of OP No.1 disclosed that the claim was already repudiated vide order dated 20.03.2015 and he was handed over the photocopy of the impugned order.  According to the complainant, the claim was illegally repudiated by the OPs. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written statement, the OPs took the preliminary objection that the complaint is time barred under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the claim was repudiated on 20.03.2015 and the limitation period of two years expired on 19.03.2017, however, the complaint was filed in the year 2018 which is barred by time.  On merits, it was pleaded that as per condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insured was required to inform the company and the police immediately. However, the insured vehicle was stolen on 08.02.2014 and the intimation to the police was given on 23.01.2014 i.e. after a delay of 15 days and the intimation to the company was given on 12.02.2014 i.e. after a delay of 20 days and as such there was violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         The ld. counsel for the OPs at the very outset argued that the present complaint is not maintainable as the same is barred by time.  Therefore, before touching the merits of the case, we have to first examine if the complaint is at all maintainable.
5.         Admittedly, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OPs vide its letter dated 20.03.2015 due to no reply from the insured. Hence, the limitation to file the present complaint started to run w.e.f. 20.03.2015. 
6.         Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), prescribes the limitation period within which a complaint needs to be filed.  Section 24A of the Act reads as under :-

“24A. 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 entertained 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, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

7.         From the bare perusal of Section 24A of the Act, extracted above, it is clear that the limitation period to file a consumer complaint is two years from the date of accrual of cause of action.   In the present complaint the cause of action lastly accrued to the complainant on 20.03.2015 when the claim was repudiated by the OPs.  Hence, the limitation to file the present complaint expired on 19.03.2017.  However, the present complaint was filed not earlier than 27.02.2018 i.e. with a delay of more than 10 months. As such, the present consumer complaint is clearly beyond the limitation period of two years prescribed under the Act.   No doubt, the complainant has stated in his complaint that he has replied all the letters so received from the OPs with regard to the claim but he has not placed on record any documentary evidence to this effect.
8.         The complainant has failed to satisfy this Forum that he had sufficient cause for not filing the present complaint within such prescribed period. He has even failed to move any application seeking condonation of the period of aforesaid delay.  In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable being barred by limitation. In the matter of State Bank of India Vs. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) AIR 2009 SC 2210 it has been held that:

“8.           It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires 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 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. 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 24A 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.         In view of the above discussion, without touching the merits of the case, the present complaint is dismissed, being barred by limitation.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Sd/-                         sd/-                 sd/-

Announced	[RAVINDER SINGH]	[RAJAN DEWAN]	(PRITI MALHOTRA)
01/10/2018	MEMBER	PRESIDENT	MEMBER