DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR
Complaint No.350 of 2018 Date of Instt. 27.08.2018 Date of Decision: 01.06.2021
Gobindpreet Singh son of late Sh. Balwant Singh, resident of House No. 63, Village Adalpur, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar.
….. Complainant
Versus
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 3rd Floor, Satnam Complex, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar City through its Branch Manager.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 3rd Floor, Satnam Complex, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar City through Motor Claims Manager.
…Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act
QUORUM:
SH. KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
SMT. JYOTSNA, MEMBER
ARGUED BY:
For Complainant : Sh. Sudhir Gupta, Advocate
For OPs : Sh. Raman Sharma, Advocate
ORDER:-
KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
The present complaint has been filed by complainants against the OPs on the averments that the Bolero Camper Car bearing no. PB08-C-3726, 2014 Model owned and registered in the name of Balwant Singh (since deceased) father of the complainant and said vehicle was duly insured vide Motor Vehicle Cover Note No.DY 1302683993 for IDV of Rs.6 lakh valid from 28.02.2016 to 27.02.2017 with comprehensive coverage as granted therein. The contract was reached between the father of the complainant , who is LR , who was residing with his father having died in a road side accident dated 13.05.2016 at Shahkot Jalandhar Road Army vehicle no.04D156433WCL2 hit against the Bolero while coming from the opposite side resulting into damage of the Bolero Camper Car in question. The claim of the damaged car in question was reported with the OPs immediately after the accident and surveyor and loss Assessor was deputed who assessed the loss and assured him that since the vehicle was a total loss, the entire IDV shall be paid to him in due course. The complainant requested the surveyor and OPs to provide him with a complete copy of policy insurance with terms and conditions which were never supplied to him by OPs. The complainant has been pursuing his case with the OPs from time to time by visiting their office on number of occasions and meeting Branch Manager, who assured him claim shall be paid at the earliest. But complainant was surprised to received letter dated 26.08.2016 from office of OPs whereby they rejected the claim. This act of OPs not only amounts to delay, deficiency and commission of unfair trade practices by OPs but they have also failed to protect the policyholder. Therefore, the complainant being LR of the deceased father, has filed the present complaint and prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.6 lakh i.e. insured declared value of the insured damaged vehicle in question, besides to pay Rs.2 lakh towards compulsory PA cover granted in favour of the insured Balwant Singh, to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for mental harassment with 18% interest p.a. and Rs.55,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their joint written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that there is no delay in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The complaint is hopelessly time barred. The complainant has not come to the Form with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. On merits, it was averred that after scrutinizing the documents it was observed that Balwant Singh was holding driving license bearing no. PB 6720130007025 dated 18.06.2013 issued by Licensing Authority Shahkot for MCWG, LMV and Tractor and not valid from LMV Transport i.e. commercial class of vehicle at the time of accident. The insured vehicle is commercial vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. OPs vide letter dated 26.08.2016 sought reply within seven days from receipt of letter but no response of letter dated 26.08.2016 received. Hence as per terms and conditions OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 06.09.2016. The complaint is hopelessly time barred. It is condition of the insurance policy under which it has been expressly agreed and declared that if the company shall disclaim liability to the insured for any claim hereunder and such claim shall not within 12 calendar months from the date of such disclaimer have been made the subject matter of a suit in a court of law. Rest of the averments made in the complaint was denied by OPs and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7. On the other hand, OPs tendered in evidence copy of terms and conditions of the policy as Ex.O-1 and closed the evidence.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written argument submitted by complainant very minutely.
5. The glance of evidence is required for settlement of the present case. Ex.C-1 is copy of cover note. In this document the date of issue is mentioned as 27.02.2016 and not valid for risk starting before 28.02.2016 to 27.02.2017. Ex.C-2 is copy of certificate of registration which was issued in the name of Balwant Singh (since deceased). This was issued by Licensing Authority Jalandhar. Ex.C-3 is copy of report which was reported to the police vide report no. 28 dated 14.05.2016. Ex.C-4 is copy of death certificate issued in the name of Balwant Singh (since deceased). Ex.C-6 is repudiation letter in this letter it has been mentioned that DL was not valid for LMVT commercial class of vehicle at the time of accident. Ex.C-7 is copy of letter regarding death claim which was issued by complainant to OPs.
6. To refute this evidence, OPs tendered in evidence copy of terms and conditions of the policy which is Ex.OP-1 on the record.
7. It is an established fact that the complainant is LR of the complainant Balwant Singh (since deceased). The vehicle of the complainant i.e. Bolero Camper Car bearing no.PB08-C-3726 2014 Model registered in the name of Balwant Singh for insured value of Rs.6 lakh valid from 28.02.2016 to 27.02.2017. Balwant Singh father of the complainant died in road accident, complainant lodged claim with OPs and OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 06.09.2016 on the ground that in the absence of any response from complainant no other option to repudiate the claim.
8. The point of limitation in the case in hand is valuable piece of evidence. The claim of the complainant was rejected by OPs on 06.09.2016. But the complainant has filed the present complaint on 27.08.2018 meaning thereby the complainant has filed the complaint after two years from rejecting the claim of the complainant. The period of filing the complaint is too much. The repudiation letter issued to complainant on 06.09.2016 and postal receipt thereof on the file. The complainant cannot wriggle out from the same that he has not received the repudiation letter, so it is bounden duty of the complainant after repudiating his claim, file the claim immediately. But in the case in hand, the complainant has filed the present complaint after two years from repudiating the claim.
9. The learned counsel for OPs relied upon judgment case titled as H.P State Forest Company Ltd. Versus M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported in Civil Appeal No. 6347 decided on 18.12.2008 S.C wherein it has been held that under Section 28 of the Contract Act ,parties are entitled to provide a period of limitation shorter than the prescribed under Limitation Act 1997(2) RCR (Civil) 518 SC. Contract Act 1872 Section 28- Limitation Act Section 44 – Contract between the parties under the contract a period of 12 months fixed for filing the claim whereas Section 44 of the Limitation Act provided a period of 3 years. Contract is valid. Contractual provision not hit by Section 28 of Contract Act. Further case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. AhalyaBehera reported in II(2011) CPJ 269 Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cuttak that the complaint not maintainable, not filed within 12 calendar months from date of repudiation.
10. Ex.O-1 is terms and conditions of the insurance company/OPs, the terms and conditions of insurance companies are binding on both the parties and no one wriggle out from the same. In para no.7 of the terms and conditions of the policy, it has been specifically mentioned that it is also hereby expressly agreed and declared that if the company shall disclaim liability to the insured for any claim, hereunder and such claim shall not within twelve months from the date of such disclaimer have been made the subject matter of a suit in a court of law, then the claim shall for all purposes be deemed to have been abandoned and shall not thereafter be recoverable hereunder.
11. From perusal of entire record of the case, it has transpired that the vehicle in question insured from OPs and insured declared value of Rs.6 lakh which was valid from 28.02.2016 to 27.02.2017 with comprehensive coverage as granted. The father of the complainant Balwant Singh died in road accident on 13.05.2016 at Shahkot District Jalandhar. The complainant surprised to receive repudiation letter from OPs vide dated 06.09.2016 on the ground that they wrote letter dated 26.08.2016 to complainant Gobindpreet Singh (LR of his deceased father Balwant Singh) but he failed to response the same. But the present complaint filed by the complainant on 27.08.2018 which is too late as per terms and conditions of the policy.
12. In the light of our above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed on the limitation ground. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
13. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe, due to heavy pendency of the court cases and spread of Covid-19.
14. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
1st Day of June 2021
(Kuljit Singh)
President
(Jyotsna)
Member
