BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 47 of 2012
Date of Institution : 6.3.2012
Date of Decision : 20.9.2016
Nand Lal @ Nand Pal son of Amar Lal, resident of Ward No.12, Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Sirsa, through its Divisional Manager.
2. Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd. Branch office Sirsa through its Manager/ authorized signatory.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Harish Chhabra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. K.R. Jindal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Saurabh Nagpal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that he is the registered owner of Tavera B2 bearing registration No.HR-38-L-4611 which was purchased by him under Hire Purchase Agreement with opposite party no.2. On 22.4.2008, the complainant got insured his said vehicle from opposite party no.1 and paid a sum of Rs.15,730/- being premium against insured value of Rs.4,25,000/- of the vehicle covering the risk of all types for the period 22.4.2008 to 21.4.2009. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 2nd April, 2009 and an FIR was registered regarding the accident in the concerned Police Station. The complainant also intimated the op no.1 about the accident and also filed a claim of Rs.one lac upon which the op no.1 appointed a Surveyour who got inspected the vehicle in question and submitted his report favourable to the complainant because the claim was just and proper. Thereafter, complainant submitted all the necessary documents to op no.1 and also removed some technical objections raised by op no.1. The complainant was under bonafide belief that his claim would be settled by op no.1 very soon, but op no.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant was paying installments of loan to op no.2 out of his petty income drawn from the said vehicle, but due to total damage to the vehicle in the accident and on account of non settling of genuine claim by op no.1, he could not deposit the remaining installments and op no.2 is pressing hard to make payment of the balance loan amount. It is further averred that when op no.1 did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant, he got served a legal notice upon op no.1 but op no.1 did not even respond. The cause of action finally arose to the complainant about a month back when the ops did not pay any heed to the oral requests of the complainant to admit his claim. The complainant has suffered serious losses due to the act of op no.1 and deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint for a direction to the opposite party no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of damage to the insured vehicle, Rs.50,000/- as loss of income, Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and also the interest.
2. Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement submitting therein that complainant is required to prove the ownership of the vehicle by producing original registration certificate on record. He had asserted to have purchased the vehicle involved in the accident under higher purchase agreement with op no.2. No own damage claim papers from op no.2 has been received in the office of the Insurance Company and as such in the absence of any claim file, the answering op is not in a position to deal with the matter. The complainant is also required to produce the insurance policy before this Forum in support of his contention. The complainant has not mentioned the name of the office issuing the policy of insurance of the vehicle. The complainant has not mentioned in the complaint that who was the driver of the vehicle at the time of alleged accident. It is not admitted that the driving plying the vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence. It is incorrect that complainant has intimated the answering op regarding the alleged accident at the time of accident. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed separate reply in which it has been submitted that the relationship between the op and complainant is that of creditor and borrower and not of consumer. The complainant has wrongly impleaded op no.2 finance company as party because loan against the vehicle has already been closed on 28.2.2011 and this fact is concealed by the complainant and due to mis-joinder op no.2 has to suffer financial loss. The complainant has not demanded any specific claim or damage from op no.2. This is a insurance claim dispute and has to be resolved by the insurance company. The accident is dated 31.7.2009 and as such the complaint is time barred.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of certificate of registration Ex.C1, insurance cover note Ex.C2, copy of legal notice dated 22.7.2011 Ex.C3 and postal receipt Ex.C4. On the other hand, the opposite party no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.R1, letter dated 13.7.2012 Ex.R2, insurance policy Ex.R3. OP no.2 has placed on file affidavit Ex.R4 and copy of ledger Ex.R5.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. In our considered opinion the opposite party no.2 has been wrongly impleaded in this case as op no.2 has averred that loan against the vehicle has already been closed on 28.2.2011 and in this regard has placed on file copy of ledger Ex.R5. Moreover, the complainant has not alleged any kind of deficiency in service on the part of op no.2 in his entire complaint.
7. Now with regard to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1 i.e. Insurance company as alleged by complainant is concerned, the complainant has alleged that vehicle in question met with an accident on 2.4.2009 i.e. during the period of insurance i.e. from 22.4.2008 to 21.4.2009 and has also alleged that an FIR was registered regarding the accident in the concerned Police Station. However, the complainant has not placed on file copy of the FIR for the reasons best known to him. Moreover, the date of accident of the vehicle is 2.4.2009 but the present complaint has been filed on 6.3.2012 i.e. beyond the period of limitation of two years. Even the legal notice has been served upon the opposite party on 22.7.2011 i.e. after two years. The cause of action arose to the complainant from 2.4.2009 when the accident took place and there is nothing on file to suggest that why the complainant remained mum for such a long time. The serving of legal notice in our view is only after-thought and a result of legal engineering only to cover the limitation. The Legislative prescribed the limitation to file a consumer complaint settled under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In Section 24-A, it is clearly mentioned that (1) “The District Forum, 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”. So, the present complaint is time barred.
8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:20.9.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
