ORDER                                 Dated:  06-10-2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President



1.     The complainant filed this complaint on 05.11.2014 and alleged
that OP has insured his vehicle bearing registration no. DL 4C AN 1822
vide policy no. 271900/31/2012/296 valid from 09.05.2013 to
08.05.2014. He further alleged that on 18.02.2012 when his son was
driving the insured vehicle, it has met with an accident at Jhandu
Singh Marg, Kamal Cinema, Red Light, S.J. Enclave, and New Delhi.
Accordingly, an FIR no. 61/2012 U/s 279/317 IPC and U/s 185 Motor
Vehicle Act was registered in P.S.Safdarganj Enclave, District South
Delhi on 19.02.2012.  Complainant alleged that the said matter is
still pending in the Court of Ms. Joyti Kler.  Ld. M.M.-II Saket
District Court, New Delhi wherein the charge has already



been framed against the son of the complainant U/s 279/337 IPC. The
insured vehicle was released on superdari. Complainant alleged  that
on 20.07.2012 ,OP refused the claim of the complainant on the ground
that the driver of the vehicle was in alcoholic condition at the time
of driving of the vehicle.  The FIR as well as MLC done by P.S.
Safdarjung Enclave had reported only the alcoholic breath of the
driver.   On 11.01 2013 a legal notice was issued to the OP but no
response was given by OP. It was also alleged  by the complainant that
he had filed a similar complaint earlier which was dismissed in
default due to non-prosecution by the complainant.  Hence, there is
deficiency in service on the part of OP and complainant prayed to
direct OP to pay the sum of Rs. 3,58,517/- along with interest @ 24 %
p.a.  with compensation and cost of litigation.

2.     In reply, OP did not deny insurance of the vehicle , accident
of the vehicle and its FIR and claim filed by the complainant as well
closure of the claim as ”No Claim”. It was further stated that the
driver of the vehicle was alcoholic at the time of driving of the
vehicle which is against the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence
complaint be dismissed.

3.     The complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply and explained
that the objections filed by OP are baseless. In support of his
complaint complainant filed his affidavit along with documents i.e.
copy of R.C. as (Ex.CW1/1), true copy of  insurance cover note
(Ex.CW1/2) , copy of FIR Ex.(CW1/3), copy of charge framed
(Ex.CW1/4),true copy of letter dated 20.7.2012 (Ex.CW1/5) , copy of
MLC (Ex.CW1/6) and copy of legal notice   (Ex.CW1/7) .

4.     In support of reply, OP filed affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar
Aggarwal (Divisional Manager) along with documents.

5.     Both the parties filed their written arguments.

6.     We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by
the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points
to be considered are as under:-



(a)   Whether complainant is a consumer?

(b)  Whether the complaint is within the period of limitation?

(c) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

(d) Relief?

7.     As OP admitted that vehicle of the complainant was insured with
OP hence complainant is a consumer.

8.     As alleged in the complaint , OP has closed the claim of
complainant on 20.07.2012 and present complaint is filed in this forum
on 05.11.2014. It is further alleged in the complaint that   a
registered legal notice to the OP was given on 11.01.2013 but in this
case  the cause of action arose on 20.07.2012 when the claim of the
complainant was refused. There is no reason whatsoever given for the
delay in filing this complaint. It is not suffice to mention herein
that complainant had earlier filed a similar complaint which was
dismissed in default due to non-prosecution by the complainant without
providing any details of that complaint and date of dismissal of that
complaint.

9.      In these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that
this complaint is barred by limitation U/s 24 A of the Consumer
Protection Act and hence not maintainable in this forum.

10.                          As this complaint is not maintainable on
the ground of limitation, therefore, there is no need to decide the
remaining points of consideration. Hence complaint is dismissed
accordingly.  Both the parties will bear their own cost.

11.                         Copy of the order made available to the
parties as per law. File be consigned to record room.



Announced on ……….