District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.563/2021.
Date of Institution: 27.10.2021.
Date of Order: 21.12.2022.
Brij Mohan Kaushik sonof Shri Satya Narayan Kaushik aed R/o House No. C-347/FCA, SGM Nagar, NIT, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, 3, Middleton Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal 70007 through its Director/ Principal Officer.
2. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, 1-2, B.P. Neelam Chowk, Faridabad through its Regional/Branch Manager.
…Opposite parties……
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. Manmeet Kaur, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Anuj Gupta, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner of the motorcycle bearing its registration NO. HR-87-1201, Model 2017, Make Hero. Insuedwith opposite paty bearing policy NO. 39010231176202244880 valid from 28.08.2017 to 27.08.2018 . At the time of issuance of the above said insurance policy, the opposite parties had assured the complainant that they would pass insurance claim and made the payment of the claimed amount immediately if the said vehicle would meet with any risk as were covered under the policy or was stolen or looted at any point of time within the validity period of insurance policy. On 18.08.2018 the said motorcycle was parked by domplainat’s nephew namely Ravinder Kushik outside his house and at about 11 PM when he saw towards the vehcle, then he found that the said motorcycle was not there and some unknown person had stolen the said vehicle from the spot. The complainant thoroughly searched the vehicle but he could not trace out the motorcycle bearing chasis No. MBLHAR238H9H17459, engine No. HA11ENH9H18174. On the statement of the complainant’s nephew namely Ravinder Kaushik a case bearing FIR No. 410 dated 20.08.2018 u/s 379 IPC was registered in the police station SGM Nagar, Faridabad against unknown thief. Two days delay was caused due to the efforts taken by the complainant to personally search and trace the motorcycle. The police conducted thorough investigation but the vehicle could not be traced ad consequently the police had filed an untraced report of the said vehicle in the court. The complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the theft of the vehicle and formal claim of the compensation was filed against the insurance policy NO. 39010231176202244880, however, the opposite parties refused the claim to process and repudiated the claim verbally
without any written information/letter. The complainant personally visited opposite party’s office with all the necessary documents and handed over to the opposite party company which were duly received by their office, however he was not provided the proper claim form to file his claim. The complainant sent legal notice dated 25.08.2021 to the opposite parties 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 parties to:
a) make the payment of insured sum of the vehicle i.e. Rs.44,506/- as insurance claim amount of the stolen vehicle.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) cost of the complainant may kindly be awarded in favor of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
2. Instead of filing written statement on behalf of opposite parties, opposite parties have filed an application for issuing necessary directions to the complainant to place on record and supply the applicant copy of the documents regarding submitting claim with applicant, P.O.D and no claim letter as well as for rejection of complaint being time barred. Reply to application has been filed by the counsel for the complainant.. During the course of consideration of above application, direction was given to the opposite parties to file an affidavit regarding non receipt of any claim intimation in the office of opposite parties from 18.08.2018 (date of alleged theft) to 26.10.2021 (date of filing of consumer complaint) qua motorcycle No. HR-87-1201 under insurance policy NO. 39010231176202244880. Affidavit to this effect has been filed.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
4. As per dictum of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 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 under Limitation Act as the alleged theft had taken place on 18.08.2018 whereas the complaint had been filed in the year 2021 after expiry of two years and 3 months.
5. 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: 21.12..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.
