Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/54/2023

Sukhvinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited through its manager/authorized signatory - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sandeep Sheoran

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHARKHI DADRI
 
Complaint Case No. CC/54/2023
( Date of Filing : 11 Apr 2023 )
 
1. Sukhvinder
son of Bakhtawar, resident of village Dhanasri, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited through its manager/authorized signatory
registered office at SCOPE Minar, Core 3.2nd Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Manjit Singh Naryal PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Shashi Kiran Panwar MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Dharam Pal Rauhilla MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 12 Apr 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Present:      Sh. Sandeep Sheoran, Adv. for complainant.

 

                   Complaint presented today. It is checked and registered.

                   Heard on the point of maintainability of the present complaint. After going through the contents of complaint filed by the complainant, we have observed that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 but the present complaint is barred by limitation as per section 69 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides that:-

69       Limitation period. - (l) The District Commission, the State Commis­sion or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (l), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, 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:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

               We have observed that in the present case, the complainant has failed to prove/place on file any document in the context that the present complaint is being filed by him within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen or could further satisfy this District Commission that he had sufficient cause for not filing the present complaint within such period, as required u/s 69 (Limitation period) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, the present complaint filed by the complainant, stands dismissed being not filed by complying the provisions of Section 69 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

                   File be consigned to the record-room.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Manjit Singh Naryal]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Shashi Kiran Panwar]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dharam Pal Rauhilla]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.