Haryana

StateCommission

A/670/2015

JAGDAMBA CATTLE FEEDS INDUSTRIES - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN. INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

RAVINDER MALIK

02 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.670   of 2015

 Date of Institution:13.08.2015

  Date  of  Decision:02.09.2015

 

M/s Jagdamba Cattle Feeds Industries, village Jarifabad Kaithal Road, Karnal through Sh.Pankaj Kumar S/o Sh.Ram Parkash Resident of House No.225-C, Purana Char Chaman, Karnal.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1. Bajaj Alainz General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No.139-140, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.
2. Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office at Sector 12, Opp. Mini Sec. through its Branch Manager, Karnal.

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial  Member

                              Mr.Diwan singh Chauhan, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the appellant.

                                                 ORDER

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

Complainant-appellant requested for compensation on account of the theft in his premises, which was insured with the Opposite Parties (O.Ps.).  When nothing was paid he filed a complaint. Thereafter O.Ps.-respondents filed an application under Section 11 and 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”).  for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.  After hearing both parties the complaint was dismissed vide order dated  18.02.2015 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short “District Forum) on the ground of limitation.

2.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

3.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

4.      From the perusal of the impugned order dated 18.02.2015 it is clear that application filed under section 11 and 26 of the Act was going to be disposed off, but, the complaint was dismissed on the ground of limitation under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”).  The grouse of the complainant-appellant is that he was not heard about limitation.  He addressed arguments qua the application only and not the limitation.  Had he been afforded an opportunity to address arguments qua limitation then it could have been a different matter. It is mentioned in the beginning of the impugned order that the same shall dispose off an application filed by the O.Ps., which is reproduced as under:-

“By this order we shall dispose off an application filed by the Ops u/s 11 and 26 of the Consumer Protection Act for dismissal of the complaint.”

5.      In these circumstances, impugned order dated 18.02.2015 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum, Karnal to afford an opportunity of hearing to the complainant on limitation also before deciding the matter.

Appellant-complainant is directed to appear before the District Forum on 21.10.2015.

 

September 2nd, 2015               Diwan Singh Chauhan                                     R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                               Judicial Member                                                          Addl. Bench                                      Addl.Bench                

S.K.