Before  the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor                                                   ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

                                      Complaint Case No. 211/22.08.2017

Sh. Virender Nath Malhotra

Proprietor of :

M/s Malhotra Packaging Industries

Situated at

H. No.-4, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar,

New Delhi-110063                                                                                      …Complainant

                                                Versus

National Insurance Company

(through its General Manager)

2E/9, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055                                                   …Opposite Party

                                                                                    Date of filing              22.08.2017

                                                                                    Date of Order:            02.09.2023

Coram:   Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

                Shri Vyas Muni Rai,    Member

                                                       ORDER

Inder Jeet Singh , President

1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) –The complaint was filed with allegations of deficiency of services that the OP/Insurer failed to reimburse/refund of amount of Rs. 94,500/- for total theft loss of vehicle/Tata 407 and claim lodged was not honoured by OP. 

1.2. The complaint was opposed by the OP that the complaint is without cause of action and it is time barred complaint vis-à-vis the complainant failed to prosecute his own claim for want of filing the requisite documents, that is why it was treated as closed for want of prosecution. There is no deficiency of services. 

2.1. (Case of complainant) – The complainant is proprietor of M/s Malhotra Packaging Industries and he is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LE263, Tata 407 (herein referred the vehicle). The vehicle was insured with OP vide policy no. 360203/31/11/630000-5792 w.e.f. 25.03.2012 to 24.03.2013.

            In between 24/25-06-2012 the said vehicle was stolen, which was parked in the service lane outside the residence of the complainant. FIR no. 140/2012 dated 25.06.2012 was registered with P.S. Paschim Vihar, Delhi. The complainant lodged the claim  with OP, he also pursued the same as guided from time to time by furnishing documentary record as per letter dated 27.06.2012 and form dated 23.08.2013. The complainant has been pursuing his claim to update him the status of his claim, he was orally told that his claim was declined. The complainant requested for his claim documents which were furnished to OP but the same were not returned on the pretext that claim still under process and it will be honoured very soon. It was also assured so in September, 2016.

2.2. The complainant keep on pursuing his claim and also visited the OP, however, in November, 2016 he was orally informed that his claim was refused, without giving any reason. Thus, in March, 2017 he sent legal notice dated 18.03.2017 to OP to reimburse his valid claim but no result.That is why the present complaint was filed on 18.08.2017 for refund of Rs. 94,500/- with interest at the rate of 18% pa, damages of Rs. 40,000/- towards mental pain, agony, harassment  besides cost of Rs. 15,000/- & other appropriate relief.

            The complaint is accompanied with copy of RC, FIR, Insurance cover, surveyor’s letters, untraced report, legal notice with postal receipt.

3.1 (Case of OP)- The OP has opposed the complaint on all counts that it is without cause of action, it is barred by time since the vehicle was stolen on 24.06.2012, claim was lodged on 27.06.2012 and the claim was closed on 15.10.2013 for non prosecution on the part of complainant. The time limit for filing complaint was over on 15.10.2015 but the complaint was filed on 22.08.2017, which is after the gap of three years & ten months being delayed by period of one year and ten months.

3.2. The OP appointed the investigator after receipt of claim of complainant. The investigator wrote letters on 27.06.2012, 22.08.2012, 14.09.2012, 28.09.2012 and the claim was closed for want of prosecution by the complainant and the complainant was informed vide letter dated 15.10.2013. This clearly shows gross negligence on the part of complainant.

3.3.  The OP also denies all other allegations of the complaint that it was very well within the knowledge of complainant that his claim was repudiated on 15.10.2013, which confirms from complainant’s on letter dated 29.08.2016 that he was knowing well about the repudiation, therefore, the plea of complainant does not sustain that he was visiting the office of OP in September 2016 or November, 2016 or he was informed of the process of the claim. There is no substance in his such plea nor any cause of action against the OP. The complaint is deserves dismissal.

4. (Replication of complainant) – The complainant filed his replication as a reply to the written statement. He denies all the allegations of written statement. He reaffirms the complaint correct. He also makes counter submissions that he had been visiting the office of OP since he was told that the claim is under process, however, he has been be-fooled by the OP. The claim was not barred by time. The complaint was lodged after sending the legal notice. The complainant deserves reimbursement of insurance amount and other claims.

5.1. (Evidence) - Complainant led his evidence by filing detailed affidavit with the support of documents filed with the complaint.

5.2. On the other side, OP led evidence by filing affidavit of Sh. Sudhir Gulati of  OP, it is replica of reply.

6. (Final hearing)- At this stage both the parties filed their written arguments. The parties were also given opportunities to make oral submissions and counsel for OP made the submissions.

            The written arguments are based on pleading and evidence of the parties. In addition, the complainant has taken objection about the locus-standi of person to author the written statement & vakalatnama.

7.1 (Findings)-The contentions of both the sides are considered on the basis of evidence on record and provisions of law.

7.2. According to complainant the written statement was authored by Sh. Rakesh Kumar and Vakalatnama is also not on proper format since it was by an employee of OP but an employee has no such authority. Whereas, it was clarified on behalf of OP that the Vakalatnama as well as reply was by duly authorized person.

            The record is seen. The reply is by Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Deputy Manager of OP and it is also supported by his affidavit and the Vakalatnama is also under seal and signature of OP, therefore, there is no substance in the plea of complainant. It is a competent written statement on behalf of complainant.  

7.3. The plea of complainant is that his claim was not considered by the OP and he was orally told that his claim stand refused and he had visited the office of OP and it was also repeated in November, 2016 after assurances in September, 2016 that his claim is under process. Whereas, the OP has proved complainant’s letter dated 08.08.2016 (signed on 29.08.2016), when complainant asked to return his documents, which were submitted with the claim form. In the same very letter the complainant also asserts that they came to know that it was time barred claim and claim cannot be settled. Simultaneously, the OP has also proved letter dated 15.10.2013 written to the complainant that the claim has been closed for want of submissions of papers. The sequence of event are suggesting that complainant was knowing about close of the claim and then letter was written for return of the documents, by also specifying that the claim was time bared.

            Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prescribed period of two years for filing the complaint from the date of cause of action and OP had closed the claim on 15.10.2013, therefore, time period of two years for filing consumer complaint ends on 15.10.2015 but the complaint was filed on 22.08.2017, which is on the face of it beyond the statutory period of two years. Moreover it is also admitted case of the complainant that the claim was barred by time as reflected in the letter dated 08.08.2016, which has not disputed by the complainant.  although the complainant pleaded in complaint contrary to his own letter.   It was never the case of complainant to condone the delay u/s 24A(2) of the Act 1986. Thus, it is held that complaint is barred by law of limitation prescribed under section 24A of the Act 1986.  Therefore complaint fails. Complaint is dismissed.

8:  Announced on this 2nd September 2023 [ भाद्र, 11 साका 1945].

9. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances.

[Vyas Muni Rai]                                                                       [Inder Jeet Singh]

        Member                                                                                     President