BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.48 of 2016
Date of Instt. 22.01.2016
Date of Decision: 28.02.2018
The Jalandhar Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Jalandhar Opp. G.T. Road, Jalandhar through its District Manager.
..........Complainant
Versus
Bharti Axa, General Insurance Co. Ltd., Unit No.S.F.2, 2nd Floor, Eminent Mall, 261, Lajpat Kunj, Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar, through its Manager.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Chandandeep Singh Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. AK Gandhi, Adv Counsel for the OP.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein stated that the complainant, The Jalandhar Central Co-Operative Bank, Jalandhar is a duly registered society under the Punjab Co-Operative Societies Act, 1961, carrying on the banking business at head office at G.T. Road, Opp. G.P.O., Jalandhar. The complainant is filing the present complaint through its District Manager Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Gaur, who is fully conversant with the facts of the case and is authorized to file the present complaint.
2. The complainant lured by the tempting benefits took a Banker Blanket Policy vide policy No.PBI/I/0869469/E3/03/D5P313 for Rs.58,04,070/- for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 midnight. The policy provides burglary insurance coverage and allied peril on stocks of all kinds of furniture/fixtures/cash in safe/strong room/chest/currency/counting machines/Acs/Gen. Set/Computers and other all kind of stationery items whilst lying at head office and or all its branches at all other/various places. Before the inception of the said policy, the complainant furnished all the material facts as required and demanded by the OPs, to the satisfaction of OPs bonafidely and in good faith and OPs after due substantiation/authentication of all relevant facts and figures entered into valid insurance contract. The policy documents i.e. schedule/exclusion clauses as well as terms and conditions were never supplied to the complainant and as such, there terms and conditions including exclusion clause are not binding upon the complainant.
3. That unfortunately, on 07.12.2012, a theft occurred at Muthada Khurd Branch, one of the insured branch. The scoundrel committed theft and took away CCTV Camera along with UPS. The complainant immediately, vide reference No.31520 dated 12.12.2012, apprised the OP about the aforesaid incident. FIR No.234 dated 07.12.2012 under Section 457/380 IPC was registered in PS Phillaur. The CCTV Camera and UPS were insured for the sum of Rs.1,45,376/- and Rs.19,213.33/- and OPs have taken the premium of the same. The complainant submitted/lodged its claim with the OP for indemnifying the loss, as per the requirement of the OP coupled with all the documents as required and demanded by the OP. The OPs are duty bound and under solemn obligation to pay the claim as promised at the time of selling the policy, but the OPs are guilty for rendering, deficient and negligent services as contemplated under the Act and causing mental pain, agony and harassment in dealing with just and legitimate claim of the complainant and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay a sum of insured of CCTV Camera and UPS i.e. Rs.1,45,376/- and Rs.19,213.33/- and further be directed to pay interest on the above amount @ 18% per annum and be also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed a written reply and admitted that the complainant purchased an insurance policy, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and further submitted that the policy schedule and terms and conditions were duly supplied to the complainant and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.
6. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-A alongwith document Insurance Policy Ex.OP-1 and further tendered into evidence an affidavit of Sukraj Bhardwaj as Ex.OP/B alongwith documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 and then closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. After considering the argument of the respective parties, we find that the complainant alleged that he got an insurance policy bearing No.PBI/I/0869469/E3/03/D5P313, after paying a premium of Rs.58,04,070/- for a period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 midnight and then on 07.12.2012, a theft was committed in the Muthada Khurd Branch of the Co-Operative Bank Limited and accordingly, FIR was lodged on same day, under Section 457/380 IPC at PS Phillaur, whereby reported that the CCTV Camera and UPS were stolen by unknown person and its value is given by the complainant is Rs.1,45,376/- and Rs.19,213.33/- respectively and accordingly, as per version of the complainant, he lodged an insurance claim, but further did not disclose whether the same was repudiated or partly accepted by the OP and further made a reliance upon a letter dated 07.11.2014 sent by the complainant to the OP for reimbursement of the genuine and lawful claim, but from 07.12.2012 till 07.11.2014 whether there is any correspondence between the complainant and OP is there or not? , these facts have not been disclosed by the complainant. So, accordingly, from the averments of the complaint, the limitation for filing the complaint was considered from 07.11.2014 and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant was accepted and notice was issued for 25.01.2016, means calculating the limitation period from 07.11.2014 to 25.01.2016, is within limitation, but the factum in regard to limitation period has been come to notice of this Forum after leading evidence by the OP, because the OP has brought on the file copy of repudiation letter dated 21.11.2013, the same is Ex.OP3, in order to establish that the said repudiation letter was sent to the complainant by Registered Post and its Postal Receipts is also affixed on the said repudiation letter by way of Photostat. So, it means that the said repudiation letter was sent through Postal Department and the same was not returned back to the OP, then we presume that the said repudiation letter was delivered to the complainant, but for the best known reason, the complainant has intentionally and willfully concealed these facts.
9. Now, we have to consider the legal point, even without raising objection by the OP, as per law any legal question can be considered by the Forum itself. So, accordingly, if we reckoned the period of limitation from 21.11.2013, when the repudiation letter sent to the complainant, then as per law, the complainant has right to file a consumer complaint within two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action, admittedly, in this case, cause of action accrued to the complainant on 21.11.2013, when the claim of the complainant was repudiated, but the complainant filed the instant complaint on 25.01.2016, means after about 2 years and 10 months approximately, which is obviously not a within limitation, therefore, at this stage, we conclude that the complaint of the complainant is not within limitation and therefore, the same is not maintainable and accordingly, this complaint is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
28.02.2018 Member President
