BEFORE THE SOUTH MUMBAI  DISTRICT  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

    O.No.

Complaint No.SMF/MUM/MA/17/65/CC/17/162

    Date of filing : 24/08/2017

                                                Date of Order:  15/12/2017

Novartis India Limited,

Office at Sandoz House,

8^th Floor, Shivsagar Estate,

Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli,

Mumbai – 400 018.                 ...  COMPLAINANT/APPICANT  

V/s.

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director,

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited,

6^th Floor, Leela Business Park,

Andheri (East),

Mumbai – 400 059.

Also at :
 

The Managing Director,

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited,

Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg,

169, Backbay Reclamation,

Mumbai – 400 020.      …..Opponent/Respondent/Opposite Party

                    Coram:

Shri. G.K. Rathod              :   Hon’ble President

Shri. S.R. Sanap                 :   Hon’ble Member

Appearance:   

For Complainant-      Adv. Shri. Nilesh Bhole

For  Opponent -        Adv. Asim Vidyarthi / Adv. Smt. Kajarekar      

// ORDER ON DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION//

PER SHRI. G.K. RATHOD – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

                   The Applicant / Complainant has filed the complaint against the Opponent relating to a dispute which arises out of insurance claim in respect of vehicle No. UP-32-FE-4824 belonging to the Complainant under its ‘Private Car Package Insurance Policy’, bearing Policy No. 2311 2006 4414 9300 000.  As per the contents of the application, the vehicle was theft and therefore, the Applicant has submitted the claim before the Opponent and the Opponent has repudiated his claim on 24/2/2015.  Thereafter, the Complainant had issued a legal notice to the Opponent on 28/4/2015.  The Opponent has replied to the Complainant on 13/5/2015, and therefore, the cause of action arose from 13/5/2015. As the complaint is filed on 24/8/2017, and therefore, the delay is for 97 days. It is further contended that Applicant is a Company registered under the Company Act and Eli Lilly and Company is another Global Company active in various areas of health care including Animal Health. This Company had entered into a Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement with the Complainant Company in April 2014 to acquire the Global Veterinary Pharmaceuticals business and for the transfer of assets of Novartis India Ltd., relating to Novartis Animal Health business to Elanco India Private Limited.  The acquisition proceedings lasted for more than two years.  The Applicant has a valid and subsisting legal right to insurance claim in the complaint from the Respondent for this reason, the Complainant has not filed this complaint as the Company was busy in acquisition proceedings. 

(2)              To rebut the contents of the application, the Opponent has submitted that the delay application filed by the Complainant is frivolous, false and deserves to be dismissed.  The Complainant is a Commercial entity and as  per the address of the Opponent mentioned by the Complainant, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this application under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.  It is further submitted that when the claim was repudiated of the Applicant on 24/2/2015, the cause of action was arose on the same day, for which the Opponent relied on the National Commission judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sainia V/s. Delhi Development Authority, FA183 of 2007 dtd. 21/3/2013, wherein it was held that “it is well established that exchange of letters between the parties does not extend limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”. The Opponent also relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission IV (2013) CPJ 419 (NC) in the matter of V.K. Appliances V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,  in which it is held that  day to day delay has not been explained by the Applicant and therefore, delay not condoned.  The Ld. Counsel for the Opponent also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Commission, Maharashtra Mumbai CC/13/270 dtd.  27/7/2017. 

(3)              We found substance in the submission of the Opponent that the cause of action arose from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 24/2/2015. As the complaint is filed on 24/8/2017, it appears that the delay to file this case is of (180) days.  The Applicant has to explain the every day delay for filing the complaint.  As per the contents of the delay application, the Complainant has given a reason that this Company has entered into an agreement with another Company and therefore, this Company was busy for acquisition proceedings. This reason is not justified to condone the delay of (180) days and therefore, we came to the conclusion that there is no proper justification and explanation to condone the delay of (180) days.

(4)              Hence the delay application is rejected and the main complaint application No. CC/162/2017 is dismissed with the following order :-     

//  O R D E R  //

1. Misc.Appln. bearing No. MA/17/65 is rejected.   

        Original Complaint No. CC/17/162 is dismissed.

(ii)    No order as to costs.

(iii)  Certified copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.       

     sd/-xxx                                                                    sd/-xxx

(Shri. S.R. Sanap)                                       (Shri.G.K. Rathod)

  Hon’ble  Member                                       Hon’ble President

Note:-  As the pleadings, affidavit, documents of the parties, are in English, the order in the proceeding is passed for the better knowledge of the parties in English.

vns