Haryana

Karnal

CC/144/2023

Rajbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma HDI General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Narwal

06 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 144 of 2023

                                                          Date of instt.03.03.2023

                                                          Date of Decision 06.03.2023

 

Rajbir aged about 40 years son of Shri Raj Kumar, resident of house no.68, village Dhanaura Jagir, District Karnal. Aadhar no.694434968019.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     MAGMA HDI General Insurance Co. Sector 3, HSIIDC, Karnal, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

 

2.     MAGMA HDI General Insurance Co. Registered office Development house, 24 Park Street, Kolkata-700016, through its MD, CEO/Authorized signatory.

 

                                                                    …..Opposite Parties.

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

 

 Present: Shri Parveen Narwal, counsel for the complainant.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant got insured his vehicle Indo Farm Tractor bearing registration no.HR-75-A-4090 with the OPs, vide insurance policy no.P0016400002/4107/152004, valid from 27.09.2015 to 26.09.2016. The said tractor of the complainant was stolen on 17.09.2016, by unknown culprits and an FIR no.124 dated 22.09.2016 under section 379 IPC was registered in the Police Station Khijrabad, District Yamuna Nagar. In the said criminal case culprits were not found by the police and concerned investigating officer has produced the untrace report before the learned Illaqa Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar, at Jagadhari. After the theft of insured tractor, intimation was given to the OPs with immediate effect but thereafter neither OPs has disbursed the insurance claim in favour of the complainant. It is further averred that due to confinement in District Jail, Karnal in connection with a false criminal case bearing FIR no.80/2019 Police Station Babain, District Kurukshetra, the complainant could not make contact with the OPs for knowing whereabouts of insurance claim, but after releasing from District Kail, Karnal, complainant approached the OPs for knowing the status of his insurance claim but OPs did not give the satisfactory reply. Thereafter, on 06.12.2022 complainant moved an application before the OP no.1 and requested to disburse the insurance claim of Rs.5,72,850/- (IDV of vehicle) regarding insured tractor in favour of the complainant and further be adjusted in the loan account of the complainant, with Magma Fincrop Pvt. Ltd. and at that time the representative of the OPs had lodged the claim of the complainant, vide claim no.C1234107100994 with an assurance that the OPs will disburse the insurance claim of said insured tractor in favour of the complainant within short span of time. Thereafter, complainant had received a letter dated 20.01.2023 vide which OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant without assigning any reason. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             Submission on the point of admissibility heard. Record perused.

3.             As per version of the complainant, the vehicle in question was stolen on 17.09.2016 and an FIR in this regard was lodged on 22.09.2016. The intimation was given to the OPs but OPs did not disburse the insurance claim.  Due to confinement in District Jail, Karnal the complainant could not make contact with the OPs for knowing whereabouts of insurance claim, but after releasing from District Kail, Karnal, complainant approached the OPs for knowing the status of his insurance claim and on 06.12.2022 complainant moved an application before the OP no.1 and requested to disburse the insurance claim of Rs.5,72,850/- but OPs did not settle the claim and issued a repudiation letter dated 20.01.2023.

4.             Now the question arises for consideration is that whether the present complaint is well within period of limitation or not?

5.             Limitation for filing a complaint has been described under Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is reproduced as under:-

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.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

6.             As per aforesaid Section of Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing a complaint is of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the present complaint, complainant alleged that the vehicle in question was stolen on 17.09.2016 and an FIR in this regard was lodged on 22.09.2016. On 06.12.2022 complainant moved an application before the OP no.1 and requested to disburse the insurance claim amount but OPs did not settle the claim and issued a repudiation letter dated 20.01.2023. During the period from September, 2016 to December 2022 there is no correspondence between the parties. Moreover, there is no separate application, on the file to condone the delay or has not made prayer for condonation in the complaint and no sufficient cause has been shown by the complainant for not filing the complaint within limitation period. The cause of action has arisen in the year 2016 but complainant has filed the present complaint in the year 2023 i.e. after the gap of more than six years. Hence, as per the provision of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the present complaint is hopelessly time barred. Moreover, as per repudiation letter dated 20.1.2023, there is excessive delay of 2285 days in informing the OPs about the claim and five days delay in lodging the FIR.

7.             Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 06.03.2023

  President,       

           District Consumer Disputes                          

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                      (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)           

                          Member                           Member