ORDERS ON ADMISSION

1. The complainant has filed the complaint against the OP and states that he is the driver cum owner of the vehicle and used the vehicle to earn his livelihood. The complainant availed insurance policy by paying a premium of Rs.19,196/- on the declared value of the vehicle for Rs.2,70,000/-. The complainant asserts that on 04.05.2019 at about 11.30 pm parked his vehicle in front of his house and on the next day i.e. on 5.05.2019 at 5.00 am his vehicle was missing and on 6.05.2019 he informed the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company and lodged a complaint with the police on 7.07.2019.

2. The complainant received a letter from the insurance company dated 25.02.2020 repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that “the claim was intimated to us as on 17.09.2019 i.e. 136 days delay of intimation to the company”, but the complainant states that he visited the OP office on 06.05.2019 and lodged complaint with police on 07.05.2019. Further, the complainant says that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, held that the grievance of theft case shall not be refuted by the insurance company on the grounds of delayed intimation.

3. The complainant says that the cause of action arose on the date of repudiation of the claim i.e., on 25.02.2020 and it is continuous cause of action.

4.  This commission has perused the records and heard the arguments of the complainant and come to the conclusion that the complainant should have maintained the complaint well within two years from the date of filing complaint with the insurance company that is on 05.05.2019 according to the complainant. The section 69 asserts on the Limitation period as follows.

(1). The District commission, 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 arises.

(2)  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complaint satisfied the District commission, 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 district commission or the state commission or the national commission records its reasons for condoning such delay.

5. The consumer commission 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, if sufficient cause has been shown and delay can condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. Therefore, the claim of the complainant on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint was clearly barred by limitation as the two year period of the Act had expired much before the complaint was filed. The complainant filed the complaint and did not turn up till date. There is no sufficient cause and, therefore, the commission concludes it by rejecting it on the ground of limitation at the admission stage.  

ORDER

Complaint is rejected as barred by limitation.

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

       (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)             (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

                 MEMBER                                        MEMBER