BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Haryana Warehousing Corporation, through its Manager (Legal) Head Office, Bay No. 15-18, Sector -2, Panchkula – 134112.

…..Complainant….

                           V E R S U S

New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO No. 9, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             The present complaint has been filed by Haryana Warehousing Corporation through its Manager, alleging that it had obtained insurance policy from the OP, regarding which the stocks stored on the open plinth at State Warehouse, Hodal, that theft took place in the said premises and 183 bags of wheat were stolen regarding which the OP was informed. A complaint was also lodged with the police. The insurance company however passed the claim only for Rs.20,325/- instead of Rs.59,475/-.  Requests were made to pay the full amount but they did not. A complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Consumer Forum but the said complaint was dismissed.  The complainant filed an appeal before the Hon`ble State Commission but the same was also dismissed on 19.05.06. The complainant thereafter submitted the documents required by the OP to pay the claim amount of Rs.20,325/- and also issued reminders but they have not so far paid the same, hence this complaint.

2]           We have heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the complainant and have perused the record to decide as to whether the complaint should be heard for further hearing or not.  We are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same therefore should not be admitted for regular hearing.

3]           It is pertinent to mention that the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a statutory obligation to have a preliminary screening as to whether the complaint filed before it is maintainable. The only stipulation is that the complaint should not be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant, which in the present case has been provided. The law on this point is very much settled and in the recent decision given by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Original Petition No.19405 of 2000, decided on 14th July, 2006 and reported as 2007 CTJ 8 (Kerala High Court) (CP) it has been specifically held that admission of a complaint before a District Forum or the State/National Commission and appeal before the State/National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not automatic.  The Forum/Commission has to consider the maintainability before admitting it and issue its notice to the opposite party/respondent.

4]           The complainant had earlier filed the complaint against the OP but the same was dismissed by the Learned District Forum-1.  An appeal was filed against the said order but the same was also dismissed vide Annexure C-9.  It was held that the complainant/appellant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP and therefore the dismissal of the complaint by the Learned District Forum 1 was just, fair and legal.

5]           The second complaint on the same cause of action would not lie to claim the amount. When the complainant filed the appeal, there was no request made by the complainant that the amount of Rs.20,325/- should be paid to them.  The dismissal of the previous complaint would operate as resjudicata and debars the complainant from filing the second complaint against the OP. Otherwise also the Appellate Court has dismissed the complaint on 19.05.06.  The right to claim the amount of Rs.20,325/- had accrued to the complainant even earlier to this. In order to claim the said amount the complainant should have come to this Forum within 2 years, at least from 19.05.06, but the present complaint filed on 22.12.09 is clearly barred by time.

6]           Article 44(b) of the Limitation Act provides limitation of 3 years on a policy of insurance when the sum insured is payable after proof of the loss has been given to or received by the insurers, the said date is the loss or the date of the occurrence causing the loss, or where the claim on the policy is denied either partly or wholly, the date of such denial. In the present case the loss had taken place on 13.06.1999, more than 10 years back. The OP had informed the complainant on 13.12.2000 vide Annexure C-6 to submit certain documents necessary for the release of the amount of Rs.20,325/- but the complainant was slack in submitting the documents. The claim of the complainant otherwise also is barred by time as the complainant slept over its rights and did not act promptly at the appropriate time to claim the said amount.  We cannot accept the contention of the complainant that if they accepted the amount of Rs.20,325/-, they would be debarred to claim the remaining amount. The said amount could have been accepted under protest but they did not. The attitude of the complainant had been that of a grossly negligent claimant and now after 10 years they have came forward and filed this complaint to claim the said amount which was being paid to them by the OP on submission of documents, which they refused to submit.

7]           The Learned Counsel for the complainant has also argued that the documents were submitted on 29.08.06 to pay the amount and reminders dated 23.10.06 and 30.11.06 were also issued but even inspite of that, amount has not been paid. Though, the issuance of the reminders cannot extend the date of limitation, yet taking the cause of action from 29.08.06 also, the present complaint is barred by time being beyond the period of 2 years.

8]           In this manner, viewed from any angle, we are of the opinion that the present complaint cannot be admitted for regular hearing. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine.  

9]           If due to not submitting the aforesaid documents at the relevant time the complainant has suffered any loss including interest or damages thereon it may recover the same from the concerned official/officer, after giving him/her/them an opportunity of being heard as to why they did not submit the documents to claim the said amount.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.