Haryana

StateCommission

A/68/2015

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HANUMAN PARSHAD - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN GUPTA

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.68 of 2015

Date of Institution:13.01.2015 and 20.01.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 07.04.2017

 

New India Assurance Company Limited, Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager, Now represented through the authorized signatory of New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Hanuman Parshad S/oShri Ram Dhari,R/oVillage Haripur,Tehsil & District-Bhiwani, at present resident of Kirti Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani (Haryana).

                                      …..Respondent

 

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

                             Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                               

 

Present:              Mr.Nitin Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It was alleged by complainant that on 07.01.2007 he parked his vehicle make Tata 407 in front of his shop.  In the next morning when he came to his shop, vehicle was found stolen. Information was given to the police and FIR No.17 was registered on 24.01.2017 for the offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short “IPC”).  Information was also given to insurance company and claim was submitted  vide letter dated 08.08.2006.  His claim was repudiated by opposite party (O.P.) without any  reasonable ground.

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that he did not give information immediately.  FIR was also lodged after long delay.  Letters were written to him to supply documents and give clarification, but, no reply was received. Resultantly file was closed as ‘no claim’.  Information was sent to him to this effect vide letter dated 30.01.2009.  Objections about limitation etc. maintainability of complaint etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 03.12.2014 and directed as under:-

“1.     To pay insured amount along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of repudiation till its final realization.

2.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments of only counsel for the appellant are heard because nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondent since so many dates. File perused.

6.      As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that theft took place on 07.01.2007, whereas FIR was registered on 24.01.2007.  Information was given to the insurance company much after date of theft.  Further claim was repudiated on 30.01.2009 whereas this complaint was filed on  08.09.2011 i.e. after two years.

7.      As per averments of the appellants cause of action accrued to them in the year January 2011 and after the period of 8 months they have filed this complaint without any request for condonation of delay.  A complaint can be filed within two years from accruing cause of action as provided under Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “Act”).

8.      Admittedly, present complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum after eight months beyond two years from accruing cause of action, which on the face of it appears to be hopelessly time barred.  It is opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) Versus Anita Sena fernandes 2011 CTJ 1 (supreme court) CP)  was under:-

“Section 24A (1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action.  In other words, the consumer forums to not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.    This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under section 24A (2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under section 24 a (1).  If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under Section 24a(2), the consumer Forums will have no option but to dismiss the same.”

          The present case is fully covered by V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) Versus Anita Sena fernandes (Supra).

9.      The Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects. In these circumstances, impugned order dated 03.12.2014 cannot be sustained and same is hereby set aside. Resultantly appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

 

April 07th, 2017   Urvashi Agnihotri                                 R.K.Bishnoi,                                                      Member                                                          Judicial Member                                                 Addl. Bench                                            Addl.Bench              

S.K.