District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 353/2021.
Date of Institution: 20.07.2021.
Date of Order: 09.09.2022.
Kanwar Singh aged about 35 years S/o Shri Dharamvir Singh, R/o village & P.O. Pali, Near Govt. High School, Tehsil & District Faridabad. Adhar No. 4634 3642 58736. Mobile No. 9278000069
…….Complainant……..
Versus
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd floor, SSR Corporate Park, Unit-229, 13/6, Mathura Road, Sector-27, Faridabad – 121003 through its M.d.A.R/P.O.
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. B.M.Mudgil, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjeev Bansal, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the owner and in possession of vehicle HIWA No. HR-38T-0869 which was insured with opposite party w.e.f 05.01.2015 to midnight was insured with opposite w.e.f.05.01.2015 to midnight 04.01.2016 vide policy No. 90593399 and the complainant also paid the premium amount in respect of the insured of the said vehicle amounting to Rs.40,951/- and till stolen the complainant paid all installments of the said vehicle regularly & continuously. During the insurance period the said vehicle of the complainant had been stolen on 05.12.2015. In this regard the complainant lodged an FIR NO. 1526 dated 08.12.2015 under section 379 of IPC P.S.Loni, District Ghaziabad, U.P, thereafter the complainant intimate for the same to the RTO 20.07.2016. Due to the theft of the said vehicle, the complainant intimated to the opposite party and submitted all the necessary documents to opposite party representative namely Nishant Kumar CC: Sheela Patel like untraced report copy FIR etc., in the stipulated time but neither the opposite party representative nor the opposite party pay the insured amount to the complainant in respect of the said vehicle. The complainant was continue follow up and made several times requested to the opposite party through opposite party representative namely Darshan patel on his mobile NO. 7226004103 to pay the insured amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the complainant regarding to the theft of the vehicle of the complainant but opposite party representative linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant sent legal notice dated 08.04.2021 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) make the insured amount of Rs.20,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant being owner of the vehicle.
b) pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complaint of the complainant was barred by principle of limitation because the alleged theft had took place on 05.12.2015 and claim of the complainant had been closed on 04.03.2017 whereas the complaint had been filed in the ear of 2021 after expiry of two years of limitation period. Inspite of repeated reminders dated 20.01.2016, 11.2.2016, 12.7.2016 & 26.07.2016, the requirement sought for highlighted hereunder had not been submitted till date for the processing the claim. Either cancelled cheque with name of the financer, A/c. Number and IFSC code written on it or copy of passbook with name of the Account Holder, A/c. Number and IFSC code written on it. Unless the requirement sought for was provided by the complainant/insured, replying opposite party should not be able to indemnify complainant’s/insured’s loss. Also the claim could not be indefinitely kept open due to non compliance on complainant’s/insured’s part, inspite of the fact, complainant had been remained number of times with reference to the non submission of papers by him. Hence, complainant’s/insured’s claim stands closed with no liability under the policy. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) make the insured amount of Rs.20,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant being owner of the vehicle. b) pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Kanwar Singh, Ex.C-1 – photocopy of cheque,, Ex.C-2 – Authorisation certificate of N.P.(Goods), Ex.C-3 – Register of motor vehicle, Ex.C-4 – insurance po0licy,, Ex.C-5 – FIR, Ex.C-6 – untraced report, Ex.C-7 - RTO letter dated 20.07.2016,, Ex.C-8 – Motor claim form, Ex.C-9 - Form of application for “No Objection certificate”, Ex.C-10 – Form 29,, Ex.C-11 – Form-30, Ex.C-12 – letter of subrogation, Ex.C-13 – letter of indemnity, Ex.C-14 – statement,, Ex.C-15 – letter dated 20.09.2021 regarding NOC,, Ex.C-16 – photographs of key, Ex.C-17 – legal notice,, Ex.C-18 – postal receipt.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.R/A - affidavit of M/s. Renu Khera, Iffco Tokio, General Insurance Co. Ltd.,, Ex.R-1 – letter dated 04.03.2017, Ex.R-2 – letter dated 20.01.2016, Ex.R-3 – letter dated 11.07.2016, Ex.R-4 – letter dated 26.07.2016.
6. As per dictum of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, the District Commission is empowered to admit a complaint within two years from the
date on which the cause of action has arisen. The present complaint is time barred because the theft had took place on 05.12.2015 and claim of the complainant has been closed on 04.03.2017 and the present complaint has been instituted in the year 2021after a period of 4 years.
4. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed being time barred. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on:09.09.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
` (Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
