ORDER                                    Dated:  27-01-2017

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1. The complainant filed this complaint on 24.12.2014 and alleged that  complainant had taken workmen compensation general insurance policy  for the insurance of his employees. The insurance cover used to have the number of employees which were covered under the policy valid from 14.06.2000 to 13.06.2001.   On 14.03.2001 , one Sh. Vijay Kumar Giri who used to be employed by the complainant died while working at the premises of Commandant, Army Base Workshop (OP2) after falling from the roof and succumbed to his injuries.  An FIR bearing no. 53/2001 dated15.03.2001 U/s 304 A IPC had been registered against complainant for the death of Sh. Vijay Kumar Giri.    Thereafter a petition under Workman Compensation Act, 1923 was preferred by the LR’s of the deceased thereby claiming a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a.  Complainant filed his written statement/ reply to the petition thereby denying that the deceased died during the course of his employment and stated that  the contract work which was allotted to complainant had already been completed on 30.11.2000 hence no work being carried out by complainant.   After recording evidence of the parties, an award dated 31.05.2012 was passed by Ld. Labour Commissioner against Commandant, Army Base Workshop ( OP2), who was directed to deposit the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,12,282/-  along with interest @ 12% on the amount of compensation in favour of  LR’s of deceased.  The commandant ,Army Base Workshop (OP2) & Garrison Engineer (West) (OP3) preferred FAO no. 460of 2012 against the order dated 31.05.2012 thereafter the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass order dated 09.05.2014 allowing OP2 and OP3  to recover the compensation amount from complainant in terms of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923.  Since complainant had duly taken insurance the claim would have to be met by OP1, however, OP1 failed to pay any heed to the said requests and demands of complainant. Hence the complainant was constrained to issue the legal notice dated 09.09.2014  but OPs did not come forward to clear the outstanding. Hence complainant prayed to direct OP1 to reimburse an amount of Rs. 3,12,282/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. or pay the amount to OP2 and OP3 and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony , harassment and sufferings and Rs. 10000/-as litigation charges.
2. In reply, OP1 stated that present complaint is also barred by limitation and admittedly the policy which was extended by OP1 company was for the period 2000 to 2001 and the liability which could have been invoked by the complainant had to within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. OP1 further stated that present complaint has been filed in 2014 as such this forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and the indemnity which was to be extended by OP1 company was strictly as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  As per the own case of the complainant no work was in progress on 15.01.2001 and complainant had taken the insurance policy no. 311000/41/00/00004 for its employees to carry on the work of repair to gutters and A.C., sheet roofing and glass fitting at Army Base workshop COD Delhi Cantt which was effective from 14.06.2000 to 13.06.2001 from OP. However the coverage was not available on the alleged date of incidence no work of the complainant was in progress in the said area as per the admission of the complainant and OP2.
3. In reply, OP2 and OP3 alleged that they are not necessary party in the matter for adjudication of the dispute between the complainant and OP1. They submitted that the OPs have already paid the amount of compensation to the L.R.’s of deceased workman and has given notice to the complainant for deposit of the said amount in view of order dated 09.05.2014 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. However, the complainant has failed and neglected to make the payment of the compensation amount of Rs. 3,12,282/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. OPs denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint and prayer that the complaint be dismissed.
4. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement and denied the objections made by the OPs and supported his complaint.
5. In support of  his complaint complainant filed his own affidavit along with documents i.e. copy of documents showing earlier sole proprietorship of Shri S. K. Luthra   (Ex. CW-1/A) , copy of  insurance policy  (Ex. CW-1/B) , copy of order passed by Ld. M.M. (Ex. CW-1/C),  copy of  written statement  (Ex. CW-1/D) , copy of document in relation to the claim lodged by the LR’s  (Ex. CW-1/E),copy of award passed by labour commissioner  (Ex. CW-1/F), copy of order passed by Hon’ble High Court (Ex. CW-1/G), copy of orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Ex. CW-1/H) , copy of legal notice (Ex. CW-1/I) , copy of reminder legal notice along with postal receipt  (Ex. CW-1/J).
6.  In support of reply OP1  filed affidavit of Hari Chand Senior its Divisional Manager along with documents i.e. copy of policy (Ex. P-1)  and copy of orders (Ex. P-2) (colly). OP2 and OP3 filed affidavit of Maj. Vandana Narayan (account officer).
7. Both the parties filed their written arguments.
8. We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points to be considered are as under:-

1. Whether this complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether complainant is a consumer?

(c) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

(d) Relief?

9. Complainant filed this complaint on 24.12.2014 and alleged that  during the validity of the insurance policy from 14.06.2000 to 13.06.2001 one Sh. Vijay Kumar Giri died on 14.03.2001.  Hence the cause of action arose on 14.03.2001. As cases related to this incidence were presented before the Commissioner , Employees Compensation Act/ Joint Labour Commissioner, Govt. of NCT and appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi are not related with the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, there is no need to discuss the outcome of these cases.  It is true that as per the finding of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi complainant raised the demand of Rs. 3,12,282/- along with interest to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered   by him due to the death of Sh. Vijay Kumar Giri who was insured with OP1 at the time of his death. Hence complainant filed this complaint on 24.12.2014 i.e. after 13 ½ years from the date when the insured person died. It is pertinent to mention herein that merely giving notice Ex. CW1/I dated  02.09.2014 is not suffice to prove the claim filed by the complainant to OP1 and its repudiation by the OP1. A claim by LR’s of deceased workman against OP1 cannot be considered as ‘claim’ under the provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP1.  In these circumstances and  in absence of claim by complainant with OP and its repudiation by OP we consider cause of action arose on 14.03.2001  on which complainant’s workmen was died. 
10.  Infact, complainant was supposed  to present this complaint along with date of insurance claim filed by him with OP, its repudiation letter and the application for condonation of delay in this matter but he failed to do so.This present complaint was filed without any application for condonation of delay.
11. Looking to the above facts and circumstances this complaint is barred by period of limitation as prescribed U/s 24 A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. As this complaint is barred by period of limitation therefore there is no need to discuss remaining points of consideration. Therefore, in our opinion this complaint is not maintainable accordingly and dismissed.
13.  Both the parties will bear their own cost.  
14. Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per law. File be  consigned to record room.

     Announced on this ………………