Delhi

West Delhi

CC/22/450

APACE TRANSCO - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-III: WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

C-BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PANKHA ROAD, JANAK PURI

NEW DELHI

 

Complaint Case No. 450/2022

 

In the matter of:

 

M/s Apace Transco Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Director Mr. Ashok Sharma,

2151/3D, New Patel Nagar,

New Delhi-110008.

		......Complainant
	Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd.

Regional Office at: Delhi Regional Office-1,

Motor Claim Hub, 803-A 8^th Floor, Tower-3,

Konnectus Building,

Bhavbhuti Marg, New Delhi-110002   .............Opposite Party

 

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

11.11.2022 26.07.2023 31.07.2023

 

 

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms. Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

 

ORDER

1. An application under section 69(2) of CPA 2019 has been filed by the Complainant for condonation of delay in filing the complaint after clear observations/reservations expressed by this commission in hearing held on 01.02.2023 as the repudiation of the theft claim of the complainant was closed by OP as a “No Claim” vide letter dated 12.09.2019 placed on record by complainant himself. In the application, the complainant has taken the ground that OP had refused to release the claim amount of Rs. 6 lakh on ground of non-compliance by the Complainant for getting the name changed in RC of the subject vehicle from Delhi RTO but Delhi RTO had refused to rectify the error in RC which the complainant acquired knowledge of vide RTI Reply dated 22.11.2019 which we have observed is addressed to one Harminder Singh Chandok whereas the complainant has been filed by Apace Transco Pvt. Ltd. After receiving the said information complainant continued to correspond verbally with the officials of OP but could not get his claim processed and then filed the present complaint in November, 2022. The application has been filed alongwith supporting affidavit of Mr. Ashok Sharma, Director of Apace Transco Pvt. Ltd. to whom the RTI Information from RTO is not addressed but CC  has been marked to Apace Transco Pvt. Ltd.
2. We have heard arguments on the application. Clearly from records it stands established that the theft claim of the complainant was closed by OP vide letter dated 12.09.2019 and a reference to the already closed claim has also been informed to the Complainant (Apace) vide letter dated 02.08.2022 by the OP. The limitation period for admissibility of the consumer complaint is two years from the date of cause of action which in the present complaint arose on September, 2019 when his claim was closed and ended in September, 2021. However, due to outbreak of worldwide Corona Virus pandemic in March, 2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo-moto cognizance of extension of limitation had granted extension of time for two years from March, 2020 till February, 2022 with further extension of 90 days ending May, 2022 in all cases where limitation was ending during this period. The complainant failed to file the complainant thereafter also for almost next six months and the ground for condonation of delay is not sufficient cause for condoning the same. The Hon’ble National Commission in United India Insurance Company ltd. Vs Nasiruddin Major(2007) II CPJ 145 (NC) held that limitation period starts running once complainant is informed of closure of case as “No Claim” keep. The Hon’ble National Commission in Tayal Enterprises Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2007) I CPJ 380 (NC) held that the words “NO Claim” it is suggested that claim stands repudiated and the term is unchangeable and the term is repudiation is interchanged. The Hon’ble National Commission in National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. VS Dr. Bhimsain (2007) II CPJ 108 (NC) held that limitation starts running from the date of denial. The Hon’ble National Commission in the latest judgement of Prodyut Kumar Moji Vs Pearless Hospital and Research Centre Ltd II (2023) CPJ 263 (NC) decided on 27.02.2023 relying upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.B. Ramalingam Vs R.B. Bhavneshwari I (2009)  CLT 188 (SC), Ramlal & Ors. Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd. 1961 (SLT Soft ) 168, Anshul Aggrawal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV 2011 CPJ 63 (SC) held that in case of limitation, the onus is  on the applicant to show that there was sufficient cause for delay and party who has act diligently or remained inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay as it is not a matter of right and since no sufficient ground was observed to condone the inordinate delay, application for condoning delay was dismissed. We, therefore, are also not inclined to accommodate the complaint by allowing the application and accordingly dismiss the same for want of sufficient cause. We also observed that in such cases where party seeks condonation of delay, we have to keep in mind the special period of limitation described under CPA as the object of adjudication of consumer dispute will get defeat if commissions were to entertained such highly belated petitions/complaints. The court should not waive limitation for all practical basis by condoning inordinate delay caused by tardy lackadaisical negligent act of functioning as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent judgement of State of UP vs M/S Satish Chand Shiv hare and brothers SLP (Civil) Number 5301/2022.The complaint accordingly stands dismissed as time barred.
3. Let the copy of this order be made available to the Complainant on application for free certified copy under the name of President of this Commission as per guidelines of Hon’ble  SCDRC.
4. Announced on 31.07.2023.
5. File be consigned to record room after date of pronouncement of Order.

 

Richa Jindal                          Anil Kumar Koushal           Sonica Mehrotra

(Member)                                    (Member)                          (President)