Consumer Complaint No.223 of 2016

Date of filing: 20.12.2016                                                                         Date of disposal:28.4.2017

Complainant: Bishnu Yadav, S/o. Late Mishri Yadav, Vill.-Marwari Kothi, P.O.-Kajora Gram,

                          P.S.-Andal, Dist.-Burdwan.

-VERSUS-

Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager, of Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Durgapur

                                   Branch, Durgapur, Viringi More, P.S.-Durgapur, Pin-7103203.

                              2. General Manager of Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd., 24 A Park

                                   Street, Kolkata-16.

Present :   Hon’ble Member :  Smt. Silpi Majumder

                  Hon’ble Member :  Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha

Appeared for the Complainant:        Ld. Advocate, Santi Ranjan Hazra.

Appeared for the Opposite Parties: Ld. Advocate, Sourav Kr. Mitra.

Order No.8, dated: 28.4.2017

This order is arising out of petition filed by the Complainant u/S 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the petition it is stated by the Complainant that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen in the month of September, 2013 and he lodged an FIR on 19.09.2013 being FIR no-371/2013. The Police submitted final report on 30.03.2014 u/S 406 of the IPC. After obtaining the certified copy of the said report the same was communicated to the OP for disbursement of the insurance claim, but to no effect. Thereafter one petition was filed before the Ld. ACJM, Durgapur by the Complainant praying for re-investigation of the case and the prayer was allowed and direction was given to re-investigate. After re-investigation police filed the final report on 30.11.2015 u/S 406/379/120B/34 of the IPC. The Complainant obtained the certified copy of the final police report on 13.01.2016 and the same was communicated to the OP accordingly. But the OP has expressed that they are helpless and have nothing to do as the claim file has already been closed. The Complainant requested the OP to reconsider his legitimate claim on several occasions, but the OP had avoided the request of the Complainant on various pleas and finally on 01.12.2016 when the Complainant visited the office of the OP-1 they flatly denied to reconsider their decision in respect of the claim. The Complainant became frustrated for such decision as he is suffering from huge financial loss. On 02.12.2016 the Complainant discussed the entire matter with his Ld. Advocate and handed over the entire relevant documents to him. After drafting of the plaint the Complainant put his signature in the plaint on 15.12.2016 as per the advice of his Ld. Advocate. Due to his old age it was very difficult for him to communicate with his Ld. Advocate. According to the Complainant the cause of action arose from time to time i.e. on 17.09.2013 (date of theft of the vehicle), 30.11.2015 (date of submission of the second final police report) & lastly on 01.12.2016 (OP finally rejected the claim). Hence he has filed this complaint within the statutory period of limitation from the date of cause of action. Inspite of this for abundant precaution this petition has been filed u/S 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to avoid all sorts of controversy. Therefore due to non-submission of the charge sheet in proper section, arbitrary attitude of the OPs and his old age such anomaly has been cropped up. If there is any delay the same is not intentional and malafide one. According to the Complainant if this petition of condonation of delay is not allowed and delay, if any condoned, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury and prayer is made by the Complainant for allowing the petition for condonation of delay.

We have perused the content of the petition filed by the Complainant praying for condonation of delay, if any u/S 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is seen by us that after theft of the insured vehicle insurance claim was lodged with the Insurance Company, but the Insurance Company by issuing a letter dated 02.04.2014 had repudiated the claim of the Complainant as ‘closed’. It was further mentioned in the said letter that no further quires on this claim shall be entertained by us. Therefore as per the settled law the cause of action for initiating the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 arose on 02.04.2014 and since the said date the complaint was to be filed within two years with a view to save the limitation. Therefore, the complaint was to be filed by the Complainant on or within 01.04.2016 before this Ld. Forum to save the limitation. But this complaint is filed has been filed by the Complainant before this Ld. Forum on 20.12.2016 i.e. after more than eight months beyond the statutory period of limitation. We have noticed that for delay of such period, no explanation has been given by the Complainant. Though the Complainant has submitted that the second final police report dated 30.11.2015 was communicated to the OP on 13.01.2016, but the OP finally rejected his legitimate insurance claim on 01.12.2016. In this respect we are to say that there is no documentary evidence adduced by the Complainant to show that after getting the second final police report the same was communicated to the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company had rejected the claim of the Complainant on 01.12.2016. During hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that after closing of the claim by the Insurance Company on 02.04.2014, further prayer was made by him for reconsideration and re-opening the claim file, but in respect of such argument no iota of evidence has been adduced by the Complainant. Therefore the averment as made out in the petition for condonation of delay has not been corroborated by any documentary evidence and hence such averment has no legs to stand upon.

As the Complainant has failed to satisfy us the cause of delay in preferring of this complaint, hence the petition filed by the Complainant u/S 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby dismissed and for this reason the consumer complaint no-223/2016 is also dismissed on contest without being admitted. However considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint there is no order as to cost.  Be it mentioned that the O.P. No.1 has filed written version with a copy to the other side, but as the petition for condonation of delay is not allowed hence, the copy of the written version be kept in the record.      

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                               

                      (Silpi Majumder)

                           Member

                   D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

             (Silpi Majumder)                                                               (Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)

                    Member                                                                            Member    

            D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan                                                          D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan