Delhi

North East

CC/231/2018

Naresh Khanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 231/18

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Naresh Khanna S/o Shri Prem Nath Khanna R/o A-35, Block A, Old Govind Pura Delhi-110051	Complainant
	Versus
	National Insurance Company Ltd Natmar Hub (Divisional Office XIII) Palika Bhawan R.K. Puram New Delhi-110066	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

02.11.2018 20.11.2018 20.11.2018

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

 

Order Passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

6698606.  

1. Arguments heard on admission. It is admitted by the Complainant the OP had closed his case as NO Claim vide letters dated 28.05.2015 and 12.06.2015. Pursuant to the closure of claim the complainant had written several e-mails to the OP between October 2015 to June 2016 for reconsideration of his claim on total loss / cash loss basis and lastly issued a legal notice dated 19.01.2017 to the OP through counsel demanding clearance of claim.
2. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for complainant and have keenly examined the material/correspondence on record. It is clear and apparent that the OP had closed the case of the complainant in May-June 2015 as NO CLAIM as is evident from the correspondence. However complainant did not take any immediate action on the closure and the e-mails were written by the complainant till 2016. Thereafter the complainant remained inactive for another six months till issuing of legal notice in January 2017. Clearly the cause of action arose in May-June 2015 when the complainant’s case was closed by the OP as NO CLAIM and despite sending several e-mails till June 2016, he received no response/reply from the OP. The complainant should have immediately taken action of filing action within two years from May-June 2015 or even at best after his e-mails till June 2016 remained unanswered to by OP which was actually one year after closure of his claim. But on the contrary the complainant remained inactive for more than two and Half years siting on closure of his claim by OP and suddenly sent legal notice to OP in January 2017 after two and Half Years of closure of his claim. This cannot entitle the complainant for waiver of limitation period and it is pertinent to mention here that the complaint is not even accompanied with any condonation of delay application. The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd and Anr. Vs Satinder Pal Singh II (2018) CPJ 245 (NC) has held that the complainant remaining inactive and suddenly sending notice to OP cannot entitle him for waiver of limitation period as any amount of correspondence cannot extend limitation period.
3. In light of the aforesaid judgment and settled law herein, even if the notice dated 19.01.2017 was nor replied, the period of limitation would not extend beyond two years starting from May-June 2015 ending May-June 2017 and since the present complaint has been filed belatedly after one and half years, the same is time barred from the date of cause of action being perverse to the special limitation periods prescribed under CPA to resolve the consumer disputes in a speedy manner.
4. We therefore dismiss the present complaint as being time barred since admitting, such highly belated complaints  would defeat the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes.
5. Let a copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
6. File be consigned to record room.
7. Announced on 20.11.2018.

 

(N.K. Sharma)               President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member