CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K, Member
(CC / 124/ 2012)
Fazal,
S/o.Muhammad, - Petitioner/Complainant
Anand Nagar, Kallekulangara Post,
Olavakkode, Palakkad.
(BY ADV.P.Gopinath)
Vs
1. M/S.Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited,
Represented by its Manager,
570, Rectifier House, Naigaum,
Wadala (W), Mumbai-400 031
2. M/S.Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited,
Represented by its Manager, - Respondents/Opposite parties
Mangalam Towers, T.B.Road,
Palakkad.
O R D E R
BY SMT. SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Complaint posted for hearing on admission. Also filed petition to condone the delay in filing complaint.
Brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant has insured his Indica Car with the 2nd opposite party for the period 25/11/2008 to 24/11/2009. The vehicle was stolen between 26/11/2008 at 10.30 p.m and 27/11/2008 at 4.30 A.M. Crime was registered by the Ottapalam Police. Theft was directly intimated to opposite party No.2. The final report of the police was filed on 8.4.2009. Complainant came to know about the filing of charge sheet only in August 2010. It was informed by the investigating agency that though charge sheet was filed, there in possibility of recovery of the vehicle. Complainant waited till January 2012, when the Investigating agency informed that they could not recover the vehicle. Complainant in person claimed the value of the vehicle from opposite parties. Also sent a lawyer notice dt.23/03/2012 calling upon the opposite parties to pay the value of the vehicle covered by the policy. Opposite parties did not respond. As per the policy opposite parties are bound to reimburse the value of the vehicle covered by the policy. Hence complaint filed to reimburse the value of the vehicle along with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.
It is further stated that though there is no delay, an application to condone delay has been filed with abundant caution. The delay condonation petition numbered as IA 270 A/12. It is stated by the complainant that as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble National Commission there is no limitation for filing a complaint regarding insurance claims. Further stated that though charge sheet was filed 8/04/2009, there was no recovery of the vehicle and the complainant was asked to wait by the investigating agency. Later in the beginning of 2012 only the agency informed that they are unable to recover the vehicle. Thereafter claim was made personally and lawyer notice also sent. Opposite party has not repudiated the claim so far. Hence there is a continuing cause of action and hence there is no delay in filing the complaint. Further states that the delay if any calculated on the date of the theft is 596 days and the circumstances under which the delay has occurred was beyond the control of the complainant.
Heard the complainant. As per record policy commences on 25/11/2008. Theft is reported on the very next day ie, on 26/11/2008. Charge sheet was filed by the police on 08/04/2009 reporting non recovery of the vehicle. The complainant on the one hand has a stand there is no delay in filing the complaint as there is a continuing cause of action and on the other hand submitted that there is a delay of 596 days which was beyond his control. The cause of action first arose on 26/11/2008 and again on 08/04/2009. Complainant has no case that he had ever lodged claim with supporting documents to opposite parties. It is true that cause of action arose on the date of repudiation of the claim. We understand from the complaint that complainant herein has not even lodged his claim to opposite parties by way of claim form and supporting document. Hence no question of repudiation arise.
As per Sec.24A of the Consumer Protection Act complaint should be filed with 2 years from the date of cause of action. So complaint filed on 16/07/2012 is clearly barred by limitation.
Now the next question is whether the complainant is entitled for any relaxation under Sec.24A cl(2).
Sec.24A cl(2) read as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section(1), if the complaint satisfies the District Forum, 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:
On going through the complaint and the interim application we do not find any sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing of the complaint. It is simply pleaded that though charge sheet was filed on 08/04/2009, he came to know about it only in the year 2010. Further he was made to wait by the investigating agency etc. In State Bank of India Vs M/S.B.S. Agriculture Industries 11(2009) CPJ 29(sc), it was observed that the expression shall not admit a complaint occurring in section 24 A is a sort of legislature command to the Consumer Forum to examine its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period. It is also stated that it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Sec 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decided the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality.
In view of the above discussions we are of the view that complaint is barred by limitation and no sufficient cause shown to condone the delay. Hence both IA and complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 4th day of August, 2012.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
