State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No. 2649 of 2018
1- Managing Director/Claims Insurance Policy,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,
DLF, Industrial Plant, 2nd Floor, Moni Nagar,
New Delhi.
2- Manager Claims Office, Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd., Claims Office, GE Plaza,
Airport Yarwada, Pune.
3- Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd., Block No.34, 3rd Floor,
Above Punjab & Sindh Bank, Sanjay Place,
Agra. U.P.
4- Regional Representative, Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd., Resident of Jamunabai
Maruti Nagar, Rajpur Vrindavan, District Mathura.
Presently through Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Ltd., 3rd Floor, Narain Building,
Shahnajaf Road, Lucknow. ….Appellants.
Versus
Mahendra Singh Baghel s/o Sri Bhajan Lal,
R/o Rajpur, Police Station Vrindavan, Tehsil
& District, Mathura. ….Respondent.
Present:-
Hon’ble Justice Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan, President.
Mr. Vivek Kumar Saxena, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate for respondent.
Date: 16.3.2020
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this State Commission against judgment and order dated 10.8.2018 passed by District Consumer Forum, Mathura in complaint no.168 of 2015, Mahendra Singh Baghel vs. Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. & 3 others whereby District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint partly and passed order in Hindi which is extracted below:-
(2)
“परिवादी का परिवाद विपक्षीगण बीमा कम्पनी के विरूद्ध अंशत: स्वीकृत किया जाता है। विपक्षीगण बीमा कम्पनी को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि वह प्रश्नगत वाहन बीमित धनराशि मु0-276893/- फोरम में वाद दायर करने की तिथि से अदा करने की तिथि तक 6 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्याज की दर से आदेश के 30 दिन के अन्दर अदा करें। इसके अलावा वाद व्यय के रूप में मु0 4000/- भी उक्त अवधि के अन्दर ही अदा करें।
आदेश की प्रति उभय पक्ष को नियमानुसार नि:शुल्क प्रदान की जावे।”
Feeling aggrieved by the above order passed by District Consumer Forum, opposite parties of complaint have filed this appeal.
Ld. Counsel Vivek Kumar Saxena appeared for appellants.
Ld. Counsel Mr. A.K. Singh appeared for respondent.
I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records and written argument filed by the parties.
In brief, relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the respondent/complainant has filed complaint before District Consumer Forum against appellants/opposite parties wherein it has been stated that he was registered owner of car no.HR 17-3964 which was insured by insurance company of opposite parties for the period extending from 5.6.2008 to 4.6.2009. During validity period of insurance policy his above vehicle was stolen on 3.2.2009. Report was lodged and crime no.67 of 2009 under section 379 IPC was registered in local police station, P.S. Govind Nagar. Thereafter, police investigated the case but submitted final report and the vehicle could not be recovered. The final report submitted by the policy was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.
(3)
In complaint, it has been stated by the respondent/ complainant that insurance company appointed surveyor Mr. Rajesh Sharma but did not settle claim of respondent/ complainant despite repeated request of respondent/ complainant. Consequently, respondent/complainant gave notice to the insurance company of opposite parties and filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.
Written statement has been filed on behalf of opposite parties before the District Consumer Forum, wherein it has been stated that theft of vehicle in question has not occurred on the place alleged by respondent/complainant. The alleged occurrence of theft is false and concocted.
In written statement, it has been further stated on behalf of opposite parties that the respondent/complainant has violated terms and conditions of insurance policy. He has given delayed intimation of theft to police as well as to insurance company. Appellant has repudiated claim of respondent rightly.
After having gone through pleadings of parties and evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum is of the opinion that the insurance company is liable to pay insured amount of vehicle to respondent/complainant. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint and passed order extracted above.
It has been contended by ld. Counsel for appellants that impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is against law as well as against terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The respondent/complainant has given delayed intimation of theft to police as well as
(4)
insurance company which is violation of insurance policy. Furthermore, alleged occurrence of theft is false and concocted.
It has also been contended by ld. Counsel for the appellants that the respondent/complainant has not taken proper precaution for security of vehicle. He has presented only one key of vehicle to insurance company.
It has been further submitted by the ld. Counsel for appellants that complaint is barred by limitation. Claim of respondent/complainant has been repudiated on 30.3.2009 whereas complaint has been filed on 8.9.2015.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant has opposed appeal.
It has been contended by ld. Counsel for respondent/ complainant that alleged theft of vehicle as well as claim preferred by respondent/complainant is genuine. The respondent/complainant has given intimation of alleged theft to police as well as to insurance company without unnecessary delay. The genuine claim of respondent/ complainant can not be refused on the ground of delayed intimation.
It has been contended by ld. Counsel for respondent/ complainant that the said repudiation letter dated 30.3.3009 was never received by complainant/respondent. Appellant has brought repudiation letter on record for the first time in appeal alongwith written argument.
I have considered the submissions made by ld. Counsel for the parties.
(5)
In written statement filed before District Forum, it has been stated by appellants/opposite parties that the claim of respondent/complainant has been repudiated. Appellant insurance company has filed no claim letter before District as it is apparent from judgment of District Forum. Repudiation letter is dated 30.3.2009. Complainant has been filed before District Forum on 8.9.2015 after 6½ years from the date of repudiation. There is no averment about this repudiation letter in complaint. If repudiation letter has been served on respondent/complainant, the complaint is barred by limitation prescribed in section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum can not entertain a time barred complaint in violation of provision of section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act.
Perusal of judgment of District Forum shows that District Forum has not considered repudiation letter filed by appellants insurance company and has not decided the issue as to whether appellant insurance company has repudiated claim of respondent/complainant vide letter dated 30.3.3009 and this repudiation letter dated 30.3.2009 was served on respondent/complainant.
If appellant insurance company has repudiated claim of respondent/complainant vide letter dated 30.3.2009 and letter has been served on respondent/complainant, the District Forum can not entertain complaint after expiry of limitation prescribed in section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 without reasonable explanation of delay.
In the case of Panipat Thermal Power Station vs. New India Insurance Company reported in 2013 NCJ 180 (NC)
(6)
Hon’ble National Commission has held that after repudiation of claim subsequent correspondence between the parties does not extend period of limitation.
In view of discussions made above, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum is set aside and case is remanded back to District Forum with direction to decide issue as to whether appellant insurance company has repudiated claim of respondent/complainant vide letter dated 30.3.2009 and letter was served on respondent/complainant and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law keeping in view provision of section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The District forum shall give opportunity of evidence and hearing to both parties before passing order.
Parties shall appear before District Forum on 1.5.2020.
In appeal, parties shall bear their own costs.
Rs.25,000.00 deposited under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act in this appeal shall be refunded to appellants with interest accrued.
(Justice Akhtar Husain Khan)
President
Jafri PA II
Court No.1
