Delhi

East Delhi

CC/981/2014

SUMESH SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INS - Opp.Party(s)

04 Dec 2015

ORDER

            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer Complaint no.      981/2014

                                                                                                   Date of Institution              21/10/2014

                                                                                                   Order reserved on               13/07/2018        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                       16/07/2018                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr. Sumesh Singh, adult   

s/o- Sh Kuldeep Singh

R/o- 97, Nagle Dewat,  

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070…….……...…………….Complainant

                             

                                      Vs

 

The Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd. 

Royal Insurance Building 

E-9, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi 110055..…………Opponent

 

Complainant Advocate                 Mr Sanjeev Nirwani       

Opponent  Advocate                     Ms Vandana Surana   

 

Quorum                                          Sh Sukhdev  Singh       President

                                                         Dr P N Tiwari                 Member

                                                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur       Member                                                                                             

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant, owner of Tata Sumo Grande Jeep in April 2011 and same was insured by OP vide policy no. 204103111632000091 (Ex CW1/1) as Anne. A  through OP agent M/s Tata Motors Insurance Broking and Advisory Services Ltd. The vehicle was stolen on 2607/2011 at Noida so  FIR was registered at PS Noida, Sec. 58 u/s 379 IPC (Ex CW1/2 as Anne.B).

Complainant informed OP on 25/07/2012 (Ex CW1/3 as Ann. C), but OP told to clear loan taken from Magma Fincorp which was cleared somewhere in March 2014 (Ex CW1/4, Anne. D). The agent of OP asked to submit all required documents for claim purpose. So, after taking untraced report from police and NOC from financer as M/s Magma Fincorp Ltd. (Ex CW1/5 as Ann. E to H), submitted to the agent who stated that claim had already been repudiated. Complainant sent notice to OP and on 02/04/2014 (Ex CW1/6).

Complainant stated that there was no delay in giving information to OP still his genuine claim was rejected. Despite of personally inquiring from OP, did not get any satisfactory answer for his queries, filed this complaint and claimed Rs 6,47,265/- as value of the vehicle with 24% interest till realized with 1.5 lacs for harassment and mental agony.

As there was delay in filing the complaint, complainant also filed an application for condo nation of delay for over 3 years.    

Notice was served. OP submitted written statement and denied all allegations of deficiency in their services. OP stated that Passenger Carrying Package Policy was issued to complainant/Sumesh Singh with complete terms and condition (Ex OPE1/2&3).  

OP stated that the present complaint was TIME BARRED as complaint was filed on 21/10/2014 where damages / theft occurred on 26/07/2011 and intimation had to be given immediately to OP whereas neither intimation was given as per the terms of the policy nor delay was explained on day to day basis for filing this complaint over 3 years. So, this complaint was time barred and to be dismissed as no acceptable and sufficient grounds were mentioned in the complaint. It was also stated that complainant intimated on 29/03/2012 whereas vehicle was stolen on 26/07/2011 so cause of action arisen on this date and had to be informed OP who issued the policy(Ex OPE1/1). The contract of Insurance between the parties has to be strictly construed and interpreted in terms of policy conditions.  Here, violation of terms of the policy clearly establishes ulterior motive to gain illegally. Hence, this complaint be dismissed.

 

Complainant filed his rejoinder to the written statement and denied all the replies submitted by OP.  Complainant also stated that despite of repeated follow up to OP office for four years, genuine claim was not paid. Complainant denied the delay in filing complaint and his complaint was very well under the limitation. It had been stated that claim was lodged with the agent M/s Triumph Auto on 02/08/2011 and OP did not appoint surveyor in 4 years time despite of repeated reminding about the loss.

Hence, it was the deficiency in the services of OP. So, relief claimed in the complaint may be awarded. Complainant filed his evidences by way of his own affidavit and affirmed on oath that all the facts of his complaints were true and correct. He stressed his evidence as Ex CW1/1 as a copy of Insurance, Ex CW1/2 as copy of FIR and legal notice dated 02/04/2014 Ex CW1/7. Also submission of claim documents to agent Ex CW1/5.

 

OP also submitted their evidence on affidavit through Mr Dhananjay Singh Manager with OP and reaffirmed on oath that all the facts and evidence were true and correct and on record. OP submitted references where repudiation by OP was justified when terms were violated by the insured and the said vehicle being a commercial one, owner/insured had to be more vigilant in terms of the policy. The citations refered were as –

1. SBI vs BS Agriculture Industries, II(2009)CPJ 29 SC. Here date of cause of action/damage was taken as the basis of case.
2. Kandimalla Raghavaiah & others vs National Insurance Co. Ltd., III(2009) CPJ 75 SC. Here same view was taken.
3. Surya Estate vs Venktashwar Sarma , III(2013) CPJ 170 NC.

In reference to the above citations, this complaint was filed on 21/10/2014 after 3 years of occurrence of incident. OP also submitted related citations where law was clearly laid down that limitation under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 could not be extended despite of any issues. So even if the suit was filed as ex facia barred by limitation. Court has no choice, but to dismiss the same. Here in this case, complainant informed through claim form to OP on 29/03/2012 where his vehicle was stolen on 26/07/2011. So there was delay of 8 months which was not explained at any point of issue.  Hence, complainant had violated all the terms and conditions of the commercial policy. Hence, this complaint may be dismissed.

Both the parties filed their written arguments, taken on record. Arguments were heard from both the parties counsels. File was perused and order was reserved.  

 

 

After scrutinizing all the facts and evidences on record, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same deserves to be dismissed as complaint is barred by limitation.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Regulations (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                 Mrs  Harpreet Kaur  Member                                             

                                           Shri  Sukhdev Singh  President