ORDER                               Dated:  05-09-2016



    Mohd. Anwar Alam, President



1.     The complainant has filed this complaint on 02-08-2016 and
alleged that OP has insured his vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-3FR-0100 vide policy no. 360400/31/12/6165000884 valid from
11.10.2012 to 10.10.2013.  He further alleged that on 17.11.2012 the
insured vehicle has met with an accident when he and his son Raza
Gulzar Singh was going to Jalandhar due to the negligence of another
car (Bolero) moving from opposite direction suddenly hit the insured
vehicle  in which complainant was  injured  thereby major fractures
were caused to him.  Accordingly, an FIR no. 316/2012 U/s
279/337/338/427 IPC was registered in P.S. Nakodar, District Jalandhar
 on 21.11.2012.  On 13.12.2012 complainant informed the OP about
accident who appointed Jasjeet Singh Hora and Company as spot
surveyors. The appointed surveyor visited the spot and made
preliminary inquiry and charged Rs. 1708/-  and its receipt was given
to the complainant.  As   complainant was hospitalized therefore M/s
Gurucharan Singh was authorized for query and inspecting of the
aforesaid vehicle. Complainant also paid  Rs 3200/- as towing charges
to M/s Baweja Recovery Service on 09.03.2013 and obtained receipt.
Under the medical guidance complainant was not available to work till
July 2014.  The OP issued a letter dated 19.11.2013  bearing reference
no. 24520/400 and asked the complainant  to provide final surveyor
report within 7 days  which was not in possession of the complainant.
On the same day OP closed his claim as “No Claim”.  Again OP vide
letter dated 30.01.2014  stated that  this claim was closed.
Complainant requested the OP for reopening of the claim on 02.09.2015
which was rejected vide letter dated 02.03.2016. Hence, there is a
deficiency in service on the part of OP for which the complainant
prayed for a sum Rs. 1,91,950/-  as damages suffered by him and refund
of payment of  Rs 1708/- paid to the surveyor of the OP and towing
charges of Rs. 3200/- along with 18% interest and Rs. 2,00,000/-as
compensation for mental pain harassment and cost of litigation.

2.     Complainant filed an application U/s 24 A of Consumer
Protection Act read with section 5 of the Consumer Protection Act for
condonation of the delay on the ground that he was undergoing
treatment due to the injuries suffered in the accident and resumed his
work in January 2015 and  the cause of action arose in this case on
02.03.2016 when OP has rejected the request of the complainant.

3.     Heard the complainant on maintainability of the complaint and
perused file and documents annexed with the complaint.

4.     It is clearly alleged in Para no. 13 of the complaint that OP
vide letter dated 30.1.2014 informed complainant that his claim stands
closed (Annexure I).  Therefore, in our considered opinion the cause
of action arose in this case on 30.1.2014. It is pertinent to mention
herein that request of the complainant regarding reopening of the
claim file against his policy  (Annexure J) was rejected by OP on
02.03.2016 wherein it was informed to the complainant that OP  is
constrained not to exceed to your request for reopening of the claim
file as no one has contacted us from 30.01.2014 (claim closure date)
. Denial of reopening of the complainant’s claim cannot be considered
as the day when cause of action arose.

5.     In support of this complaint, complainant filed true copy of
the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Fast Track
Court, Bathinda in CIS No. 468 of 2013 which was decided on 20.2.2015.
This case was filed on 06.11.2013. It clarify  that complainant filed
Motor Accident Claim but he did not prefer to file complaint U/s 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act within the period of limitation prescribed
U/s 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. It is pertinent to mention
herein that complainant filed his treatment slip i.e. Annexure F dated
01.02.2014 wherein treating doctor prescribed bed rest for six weeks
thereafter the same doctor on 25.05.2014  further advised bed rest for
eight weeks.   These certificates are not suffice to justify
complainant’s affidavit that due to accident on 17.11.2012 he was able
to resume his work in January 2014. In these circumstances complainant
has failed to show the satisfactory reason for the condonation of
delay in this case. Hence, this application is rejected accordingly.

6.      Looking to the above facts and circumstances we are of the
opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by
limitation under the provisions of Section 24 A of the Consumer
Protection Act. Hence, complaint is not maintainable in this forum and
dismissed accordingly. File be consigned to record room.



Announced on ………………..