Delhi

South Delhi

CC/394/2012

SHRI HARDEV DOHIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

23 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

 

Case No. 394/2012

 

1. Sh. Hardev Dohil

(Since deceased

Through his legal heirs)

 

1. Smt. Prem Raksha Dohil

(Since deceased

Through his legal heirs)

 

2. Dr. Ranjan Dohil-Son, (Major)

S/o Late Shri Hardev Dohil

R/o 12784, Toyon Mesa Commission,

San Diego, California 92130, USA

 

3. Ms. Upasna Dohil (married name Willaims),       

Daughter, (Major)

D/o Late Shri Hardev Dohil,

R/o “Hamsted” Rowley Lane,

Stoke Poges, Bucks, SL3 6NR, U.K.

 

4. Ms. Angela Dohil-Daughter, (Major)

D/o Late Shri Hardev Dohil

R/o 66, Mead Road, Langley,

Berkshire, SL3, 8BH, U.K.

 

Also all residents of :

M-17, Main Market,

Greater, Kailash-II,

New Delhi-110048

….Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Lotus Tower, First Floor,

Community Centre, New Friends Colony,

New Delhi-110025.

 

        ….Opposite Party

    

 Date of Institution    :  06.08.2012     

 Date of Order            :  23.02.2023     

 

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

 

ORDER

 

 

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

 

1. Complaint has been filed by the legal heirs of the Complainant since he is deceased.

On the strength of his complaint, complainant prays for direction to M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Company (OP) to pay a sum of Rs. 2,71,718/- alongwith interest @ 18%  p.a. towards  claim of the stolen car and Rs. 1 lac on account of damages/compensation for losses suffered by the complainant due to rejection of the claim.

2. Complainant purchased a vehicle ,Hyundai Santro Xing XO  which was purchased in part exchange of  a Santro Car  on September 2007. It was with the understanding with Hyundai Motors that the existing policy no. 0100398705 be continued, for the reason that the complainant was entitled to 65% NCB for many years.
3. It is stated that complainant received a letter dated 21.07.2008   from OP whereby he was informed that the insurance policy of  the vehicle in question was expiring on 19.10.2008. Later on the complainant was informed that the letter dated 21.07.2008 was a mere proposal ,hence  the delay to renew the policy was due to the staff of OP in Mumbai.

 

4. It is stated that the complainant was later informed by the officials of OP that the said vehicle was not insured with OP but with M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance and gave the complainant policy no. 300153317607000. It is stated that due to misrepresentation of facts by the officials of OP the renewal of car was obtained from OP vide policy no. 015060628900 w.e.f. 31.01.2009 to 30.01.2010  and the complainant paid premium of Rs. 3,818/- towards the insurance.
5. It is further stated that the said vehicle was stolen from the front of the residence of the complainant on 02.02.2009 and FIR was registered on 13.02.2009 for the same. Thereafter complainant registered the insurance claim  with OP  and subsequently furnished the untraced report on 12.03.2009.
6. Complainant was shocked to know that his claim was rejected on 31.08.2009 on the premises that during investigation, it was noticed that the above insurance was not issued for the car and the said car was previously insured with M/s Chola Mandalam MS General Insurance Company for the period from 20.09.2007 to 19.09.2008. The staid fact  apparently confirms ,break of 131 days in the  insurance  policy. OP received confirmation from them that the complainant was entitled for 20% No Claim Bonus (NCB) on renewal. In light of breach of declaration at the time of taking policy mentioned under G.R.27 of Motor vehicle policy ,the claim of the complainant was rejected.
7. Thereafter, despite exchange of communication between the parties the claim of the complainant was not settled therefore complainant approached this Commission.

 

Before we go into the merits of the case it is pertinent to decide the preliminary objection of limitation raised by OP at the time of final arguments.

As per Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, limitation  to file a complaint is two years. Relevant Section is reproduced as under :-

Limitation period-

(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.

8.  LRs of the Complainant approached this Commission agitating that the rightful claim of the complainant was not paid by OP. The insurance claim of the complainant was rejected on 12.10.2009 and the instant case has been instituted on 06.08.2012. As the complaint has been filed after two years of the accrual of the cause of action, complaint is barred by limitation. Though the complainant has been writing letters to OP regarding rejection of the claim, it is settled that correspondence between the parties does not increase the limitation.

In view of the above the complaint is dismissed, being barred by limitation. 

Parties to be provided copy of order as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.

 

File be consigned to the record room