Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/422

sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Sabharwal Adv.

24 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 422 of 03.09.2019

Date of Decision            :   24.10.2019

Sunil Kumar son of Sh.Umed Singh r/o VPO Gothra, District Bhiwani, Haryana.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.The General Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, having its Office at Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 (Registered office).

2.The Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Servicing Office-1^st Floor, Sohan Singh Complex, Near Railway Crossing, Ludhiana, Punjab-141002, India.

…Opposite parties

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        None

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant, the registered owner of vehicle having ICV Class A-1 GVWLT 7500 Body-Tempo Tata 407 bearing registration No.HR-19-E0695 got the same insured with Op2 on 5.11.2014 through authorized agent for period from 3.11.2014 to 2.11.2015. On 31.05.2015 at about 7:00 AM, this vehicle stood stolen along with original RC, Insurance policy, original permit and other necessary documents, which were kept in the dashboard of the vehicle. Complainant got knowledge of this theft immediately thereafter and then telephonic call to police was given through mobile. Request was made to police officials to register the FIR regarding this stolen vehicle, but police officials had not paid heed to any request of complainant. FIR No.25/2015 dated 5.2.2015 was registered at P.S.Division No.6, Industrial Area, District Ludhiana. Soon after receiving the untraced report and order of the concerned Court, complainant contacted the agent of OP2 for lodging the claim, but no response received and as such complainant felt cheated and tortured. Refusal of Ops to pay the claim alleged to be an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and that is why this complaint filed for seeking direction to Ops to rectify the fake assessment without any delay along with compensation.

2.                None turned up for complainant and as such, after perusing the file, this complaint decided through this detailed order for admission purpose.

3.                Perusal of contents of complaint itself reveals that theft of the vehicle in question took place on 31.05.2015 and FIR got registered on 5.2.2015. After going through FIR Ex.C5 regarding theft of vehicle in question, it is made out as if this FIR lodged on 5.2.2015 by mentioning as if theft took place on 31.1.2015. So date of theft mentioned as 31.5.2015 in para no.5 of the complaint is erroneously mentioned. Untraced report regarding FIR No.25 dated 5.2.2015 was accepted by the Court of Sh.Ravneet Singh, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana on 14.10.2016 is a fact borne from the contents of copy of order produced on record as Ex.C8. When copy of this untraced report obtained qua that contents of complaint absolutely are silent and as such, it is obvious that virtually cause of action accrued to the complainant for lodging of claim immediately after finding the theft of the vehicle having taken place on 31.1.2015 or after knowing about the acceptance of untraced report on 14.10.2016. It is so because complainant Sunil Kumar was present on the date of passing of order dated 14.10.2016 as revealed by copy of order is produced on record as Ex.C8. As complainant took no steps for lodging the claim even after issue of registered legal notice Ex.C1 dated 30.6.2017 within the statutory period of two years provided by Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such, it is obvious that complaint is barred by limitation, being not filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action i.e. 31.01.2015 or 05.02.2015. As and when, complaint barred by limitation, the same deserves to be out-rightly dismissed at any stage and as such, this complaint deserves to be dismissed at admission stage itself.

4.       As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed at admission stage itself, being barred by limitation. Copy of order be supplied to the complainants free of costs as per rules.

5.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Jyotsna Thatai)                            (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:24.10.2019

Gurpreet Sharma.