View 24077 Cases Against National Insurance
View 7243 Cases Against National Insurance Company
Ethnic Fancy Food Inc filed a consumer case on 20 Nov 2017 against National Insurance Company Ltd in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is CC/372/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Dec 2017.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.372 of 2017
Date of instt. 09.11.2017
Date of decision: 20.11.2017
1. Ethnic Fancy Foods Inc. 64, Bannar Road, P.O.Box 471, Berlin MZ 01503, through its President Inderjit Kaur Virk through his lawful attorney Tejinder Singh son of Sh. Puran Singh, resident of H.No.488, Model Town, Karnal.
2. M/s Guru Kirpa Agro Foods, Sandhir Road, Nilokheri, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal, through its partner Sh. Lokesh Sardana sonof Sh. Dhalu Ram, through his lawful attorney Tejinder Singh son of Sh. Puran Singh, resident of H.No.488, Model Town, Karnal
…………Complainants
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Ltd. Opposite Government Girls School, Railway Road, Karnal through its Divisional Manager, Karnal.
2. W.K.Webser Overseas Ld. 80, Maiden Lane, New York NY 10038 USA through Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Karnal
………..Opposite Parties
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Shri.Jagmal Singh ………..President.
Shri. Anil Sharma……….Member.
Present: Sh. G.P.Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint against two opposite parties. The opposite party No.2 is W.K.Webser Overseas Ld. 80, Maiden Lane, New York NY 10038 USA. The address of the above said company is of New York USA, therefore, forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint against the said company. No doubt the address of the said company i.e. Opposite Party No.2 is mentioned through Divisional Manager of National Insurance Company but is same will not served the purpose. If any order has been passed against the said company, then it will not be possible for this forum to get complied with the same.
According to the complainant his claim is repudiated on 19.02.2015 and the present complaint has been filed on 09.11.2017. No doubt the complainant has filed an application for condonation of delay wherein it is sated that the complainant has previously filed a complaint on the same cause of action on 17.02.2017which was within a time and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.6.2017. The complainant has produced a copy of order dated 07.06.2017. In that order the complainant was granted liberty to seek remedy in accordance with the provision of law. The exemption of that time has not been granted. Even for the argument sake it be presumed that the said period is excluded while continuing the period of limitation even then the present complaint is time barred. The complainant has to explain each and every day of delay but the same has not been explained in the application. The complainant alleged that in the meanwhile, he approached the Opposite Party for payment and the opposite party assured the complainant to settle the claim favorably. To prove that the opposite party has assured the complainant for settlement of the claim, the complainant has not placed any document on the file. The complainant has produced an authority cited 2013(4)CLT Page No. 86 title as Lucky Mittal & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The said authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the complainant was granted liberty in accordance of provision of law. In the above circumstances, the present complaint is time barred.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being time barred at the stage of admission.
Announced
Dated: 20.11.2017 (Jagmal Singh)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal,
(Anil Sharma)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.