Haryana

StateCommission

A/814/2016

SHORAB - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMB.GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

ABHIMANYU SINGH

29 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    814 of 2016 

Date of Institution:    06.09.2016    

Date of Decision :     29.09.2016  

 

Shorab s/o Sh. Sher Mohd, Resident of House No.238, Village and Post Office Buraka, Tehsil Tauri, District Mewat.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, ABW Tower, 5^th Floor, Mehrauli Road, near IFFCO Chowk, Gurgaon.

2.      Indiabulls Financial Services Limited 448-451, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon through its authorised signatory Sh. Basuki Nath Srivastava.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                  

Present:               Shri Virendra Rana, Advocate for appellant.  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated July 15^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.256 of 2011 for modification of order.

2.                Truck bearing registration No.HR-74-0401, owned by Shorab-complainant/appellant, was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/respondent, for the period March 5^th, 2009 to March 4^th, 2010 for Rs.14,25,000/-. On 14^th December, 2009 the truck was stolen when it was parked on road side in the area of Lawrance Road, Delhi. F.I.R. No.572 (Exhibit C-4) was lodged in Police Station, Vasant Kunj, North-South, Delhi. The Insurance Company was informed. The Police submitted untraced report (Exhibit C-5). Claim being filed, the Insurance Company repudiated the same vide letter Exhibit C-7.  Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The opposite party-Insurance Company contested complaint by filing written version stating that the key of the truck was left in the ignition and thus there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After hearing the learned counsel learned counsel for the parties and going through the case file, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“5.     Consequently, the complainant is entitled to 75% of the assured amount of vehicle i.e. Rs.10,68,750/-. The complainant has been harassed by the OP causing mental agony by compelling him to knock the door of the Fora, thus, he is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant is also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

6.      However, OP-2 Finance Company has first right over the amount of claim awarded by this Forum as the vehicle of the complainant in question was duly hypothecated with Vehicle Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 31.03.2009 for a sum of Rs.11,82,000/- (OP-1) which is also shown in RC (C-1) and Insurance Policy (C-2) of the vehicle and the Statement of Account for the period 31.03.2009 to 30.06.2013 (OP-2C) shows the outstanding amount against the complainant’s Loan A/c No.LCVNCGU00047830 a sum of Rs.19,65,015/- as on 30.06.2013 which has never been refuted by the complainant and the complainant has to comply with the terms and condition of Loan Agreement.

Consequently, OP-1 is directed to release the payment of awarded amount to OP-2 towards the above Loan Agreement of the complainant, however, subject to settlement of Loan Account between the Loanee and the OP-2 Finance Company as it is not pending with this Fora”.

5.      There is delay of 746 days in filing of the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the appellant by filing an application.

6.      The ground taken for condonation of delay given in the application is as under:-

“2.     That the applicant/appellant received the certified copy of the orders dated 15.7.2014 on 22.7.2014, however, could not manage the necessary funds for the purpose of filing an appeal against the same.

3.      That in fact, the applicant/appellant rendered completely jobless after his truck was stolen, the arbitration proceedings were initiated by the respondent/OP No.2 and the insurance company, respondent/OP No.1 also paid the awarded amount of Rs.11,82,000/- alongwith interest to the financer, respondent/OP No.2.

4.      That the applicant/appellant not only lost his truck but also suffered a setback when the awarded amount was handed over to the financer, respondent/OP No.2 by the insurance company, respondent/OP No.1.

5.      That the applicant/appellant could not arrange the necessary funds for the purpose of filing an appeal against the impugned orders dated 15.7.2014 finally approached the present counsel to extent the necessary help to the desperate applicant/appellant.”

7.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every day’s delay.”

8.      In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, (2008) 17 SC 448, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“…The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.

9.      In this case, the appellant has taken casual approach and has not proved to be a prudent litigant. The plea taken by the appellant is not believable. A valuable right has accrued to the respondents-Opposite Parties. Even otherwise, the plea of the appellant that he could not arrange funds to file appeal is not acceptable.  Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for condonation of delay of 746 days in filing of the appeal is made out.  Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

10.              Even on merits, there is no force in this appeal.  The appellant-complainant has only challenged the order to the extent that the District Forum should not have ordered the payment of compensation to the financer. The appellant does not dispute the payment to be due towards the loan account to the financer. Thus, the District Forum has rightly directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount to the financer. So no ground to interfere is made out.

11.              In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on both the grounds, that is, being barred by limitation as well as on merits.

 

Announced: 29.09.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

CL