Delhi

New Delhi

CC/191/2012

Raj Kumar & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

 

                      CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                         (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                    ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                         NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./191/2012                                 Dated:

       In the matter of:

        Raj Kumar

        S/o Late Sh.  Pooran Chand

        R/o N- 357, Chander Shekhar Azad Colony

         Kishan Ganj                                         ……..Complainant

VERSUS

TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.

Regd. Office at:

Peninsula Corporate Park,

9^th Floor, Nicholas Pirmal Tower,

Ganpat Rao kadam Marg,

lower Parel

Mumbai-400013

 

Also at :

TATA- AIG Insurance

2^nd Floor,International Business Centre

M-38/1 Connaught Place,

New Delhi- 110001                           ………Opposite Party

              

ARUN KUMAR ARYA - PRESIDENT

 

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant got insured a car bearing No. DL 8 CM 0875 valid from 04/06/2005 to 03/06/2006 and subsequently the same was renewed for the period 04/06/2006 to  03/06/2007. The extra premium was taken by the OP insurance company for providing personal accident cover to the owner of the vehicle for a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/-.
2.  Unfortunately on 05/01/2007 the abovesaid vehicle met with an accident resulting in facture over the right middle finger and also over right medial walls to the complainant and he  also suffered swelling all over the body. Seeing the critical condition of the complainant subsequently an operation was performed on 09/08/2007 and the complainant spent a sum of Rs. 80,000/- on his treatment. Since the complainant was not in a position to move from his legs, he took a treatment from private doctor as well as undergo physiotherapy and for which he almost spent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Due to this accident the complainant suffered partial disability also.

3. It is stated that if the extra premium is taken by the Insurance company then the case can be filed before MACT Tribunal as such the complainant filed his case at Tis Hazari Delhi on 16/12/2009 before MACT Tribunal. Subsequently, a judgement of Hon. Supreme Court came into the notice of the Counsel for complainant that the personal accident matters are maintainable before consumer Forums, hence, the petition before the MACT Tribunal was withdrawn by an order dated 03/12/2011 and the present complaint was filed with this Hon. Forum on 15/03/2012 for the reimbursement of the accident claim.
4. Complaint was contested by OP. It is stated that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 05/01/2007. As per the condition no. 1 of the policy terms and conditions, notice of any accidental loss is to be informed to the insurance company on immediate basis which the complainant fails to do so and prayed that the complaint be dismissed on this sole ground.

 

5. Both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit. We have heard argumens advance at the bar.

6. During the course of the argument, Cl. for OP has strongly  argued that the present complaint is barred by limitation, hence issue of limitation needs to be decided first.

7. It is argued on behalf of OP that the complainant never informed the OP insurance company about the accident in question and never lodged any claim with the OP. The OP insurance company came to know about the present claim vide suit no. 543/2011 filed before MACT Delhi on 03/12/2009 by the complainant and which was subsequently withdrawn by him for filling before this Forum. 

8. It is argued on behalf of complainant that  a judgement of Hon. Supreme Court came into the notice of the Counsel that the personal accident matters are maintainable before consumer Forums, hence, the petition before the MACT Tribunal was withdrawn by an order dated 03/12/2011 and the present complaint was filed with this Hon. Forum on 15/03/2012 for the reimbursement of the accident claim, hence, there is a delay in filing the present complaint which is not intentional or deliberate and prayed that the delay be condoned in the interest of justice.

9. Perusal of the file shows that the complainant has filed the present complaint on 15/03/2012. the accident in question took place on 05/01/2007. It is admitted position that the complainant never informed the OP insurance company about the accident in question and never lodged any claim with the OP. The OP insurance company got aware of the present complaint vide suit no. 543/2011 filed before MACT Delhi on 03/12/2009 by the complainant and subsequently withdraw by him for filling before this Forum. 

10. The complainant neither approached the Insurance Co. nor approached this Forum after the accident in question for a period of approx. 5 years. The complainant remained silent and neither moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the present complaint. During the course of argument, he fails to assign any justified reason for the delay of five years. 

11. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that  since, the accident in question took place on 05/01/2007 the complainant approached this Forum on 15/03/2012 i.e. beyond the period of 2 years of the accrual of cause of action.  The complaint is barred by limitation,  same is hereby dismissed.

This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  File be consigned to Record Room.

        Announced in open Forum on  26/02/2020

 

                (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                           (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                    (H M VYAS)

                              MEMBER                                                        MEMBER