Haryana

Ambala

CC/308/2022

RAMESH CHAND . - Complainant(s)

Versus

KBS MOTORS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BINDERJIT SINGH

04 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                         Complaint case no.         :    308 of 2022

                                                          Date of Institution           :     01.08.2022

                                                          Date of decision    :                 04.08.2022.

Ramesh Chand son of Tulsi Ram, resident of village Nalvi, Tehsil Shahabad, Distt. Kurukshetra.                                                                  

                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

                                       Versus                 

1. KBS Motors Private Ambala-Jagadhri Road, Ltd. H.Q. Saha, village Topla, Distt. Ambala, authorized dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., through its Managing Director.
2. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No.232 234, 2nd floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022, through its Managing Director.
3. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd, 3^rd  floor, Shanti Complex, Jagadhari Road, opposite Civil Hospital, Manager. Ambala Cantt, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                             ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Binderjeet Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

This complaint has been filed by Shri Ramesh Chand, under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

(i)      To pay Rs.7,56,312/- i.e the insurance amount of the car to  the complainant alongwith up- to-date interest.

2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit. 

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that on 4.4.2016 the complainant had purchased a car make Quanto C4, bearing chassis No.000932 Engine No.000932 (in short the vehicle) from OP No.1, on making payment of Rs.7,56,312/-. The said vehicle was got insured with OP No.2, valid for the period from. 4.4.2016 to 3.4.2017.  On 16.3.2017, the said vehicle was parked in the house of one Dalip. However, at about 2 A.M. the servant of Dalip namely Vinod Kumar came to the house of the complainant and told  him that the horn of the vehicle car is blowing. When the complainant went at the spot, he found that the vehicle was totally burnt. Resultantly, the complainant intimated Control Room, Kurukshetra and the Police of P.S. Shahabad, who visited the spot and recorded the statement of the complainant and registered D.D.R. No.022 dated 18.3.2017. Thereafter, claim was lodged by the complainant with OP No.2 alongwith necessary documents for making payment of IDV of Rs.7,18,496/- as the vehicle in question was under insurance cover, when the fire incident took place and it was totally burnt but till date, claim amount has not been paid by OP No.2. It has been stated earlier the complainant has filed a similar complaint in this Consumer Commission, which stood withdrawn by him on technical grounds, as the complainant could not deposit the court fees on the complaint.
3.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, at the preliminary stage and also carefully gone through the case file.
4.           In Section 69 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which deals with the limitation period for filing consumer complaint before Consumer Commissions, which is reproduced hereunder:-

 

“…..69. (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen…..”

5.           A bare perusal of Section 69 (1) extracted above, clearly says that the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The present complaint has been filed before this Commission on 01.08.2022. Admittedly the fire took place in the said vehicle on 16.3.2017 and DDR No.022 was registered by the Police concerned on 18.3.2017. Thus, in any case, the cause of action has accrued to the complainant on 18.03.2017 to file consumer complaint in respect of the dispute in question i.e. if, as per Section 69 (1) afore-extracted, the period of 2 years are calculated from 18.03.2017 it comes to an end on 17.03.2019, whereas, on the other hand, as stated above, this complaint has been filed on 01.08.2022 which in our considered opinion is time barred. 
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that  since earlier consumer complaint bearing no.333 of  2021 filed on 03.11.2021 had been withdrawn before this Commission vide order dated 22.11.2021, with liberty to file the same afresh with better particulars, as such, it cannot be said that the present complaint is barred by time. In our considered opinion, the said contention does not merit acceptance because the order dated 22.11.2021, was passed by this Commission on the statement having been given by learned counsel for the complainant that he wants to withdraw the complaint due to technical defect, with liberty to file afresh one. At the same time, this Commission did not enter into merits of the case, at the time of passing of the said order dated 22.11.2021 and it was clearly held by this Commission that liberty is granted to the complainant to file fresh consumer complaint, if permitted as per law. Thus, in this view of matter, since, as per Section 69 (1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, extracted above, this complaint having been filed in the year 2022 is time barred, it cannot be entertained by this Commission, as per law. In the case titled as State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) 2009 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: Provisions of Section 24a is (2) CLT 541 SC, pre-emptory in nature and requires Consumer Forums to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of action.
7.           In view of aforesaid discussion, it is held that this complaint is dismissed in limine being time barred, with no order as to costs. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant, free of costs. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 04.08.2022.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member             President