Date of filing: 07.09.2018 Date of disposal: 22.04.2019
Complainant: 1. Smt. Nandita Gon, W/o. Sri Subhas Chandra Gon, residing at Village: Patun, PO: Denur, PS: Monteswar, District: Purba Bardhaman – 713 145.
2. Mrs. Suasmita Gon, W/o. Sandip Kumar Gon, previously residing at Village: Patun, PO: Denur, PS: Monteswar, District: Purba Bardhaman – 713 145 and presently residing at Hoglardair, PO: Choapara, PS: Jalangi, Murshidabad – 742 305.
- V E R S U S -
Opposite Party: 1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having its office at 4, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 700 001, represented by the Regional Manager (Legal).
2. The Branch Manager, working for gain at Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Burdwan Branch at BCA Building, Court Compound, Purba Bardhaman – 713 101.
3. The Divisional Manager, working for gain at Oriental Division at Uma Bhaban, G. T. Road, Asansol – 713 301, District: Paschim Bardhaman.
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Syed Muztaba Ali & Alok Kumar Chowdhury.
Appeared for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 , 2 & 3: Ld. Advocate, Saurabh Dey.
Order No. 08, Dated: 22.04.2019
The case record is taken up for passing order on the petition under Section 24A of the C. P. Act, 1986 filed by the complainants praying for condonation of delay in filing the complaint which as per the complainants is delay of 2 years and 6 months. Complainants stated that to file this case for realizing of value of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 7,80,000=00 with interest and also prays for compensation and litigation cost.
Complainant No. 1 stated that she purchased the vehicle and the said vehicle was insured under the policy which was valid from 16.05.2010 to 15.05.2011 but the said vehicle was stolen away on 30.01.2011 during sustenance of the policy. The complainant No. 1 lodged F. I. R. and informed the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company by the letter dated 17.11.2013 asked the complainant No. 1 provides certain documents for settlement of the claim. But the complainant No. 1 by letter dated 20.12.2013 informed that some documents i.e. R.C. Book and Driving License were lost by the complainant No. 1 and therefore she prays sometime for submitting the documents after arrangement of such documents. But to very surprise by the letter dated 26.02.2014 OP closed the claim on the ground of non-submission of necessary documents for settlement of the claim. Therefore she filed an application under RTI Act on 04.09.2017 and she also filed the documents as per requirement dated 27.11.2013. The documents were sent on 11.01.2018. Following the RTI application complainant was further informed by the OP that the said claim was already closed on 26.02.2014 for non-submission of documents in time. Therefore, she filed this case before this Forum. Moreover, she stated in the petition for condonation of delay that there is a delay in filing this case for 2 years and 6 months. To that effect the complainants filed medical certificate stating the fact that both the complainants i.e. mother and daughter were suffering from some diseases and the certificate of the doctor dated 20.11.2017 goes to show that the complainant No. 1 has been suffering from Rheumatic Pain since 4th January 2016 and she has been under treatment till now. Her condition from January 2016 to September 2017 was so critical that it was fully impossible for her to leave the bed. The certificate of said doctor dated 20.11.2017 goes to show that complainant No. 2 was suffering from serious gynaecological problem since March 2017. The complainants pray for condonation of delay of 2 years 6 months as per their calculation for filing this.
OP filed written objection stating the fact that Insurance Company repudiated the claim in ground of non-submission of necessary documents for settlement of the claim. The said documents were asked for vide letter dated 27.11.2013 and copy of letter has also been submitted by the complainants for non-submission of the documents the claim repudiated on 26.02.2014 and the complainants admitted receiving the said letter. However, complainants filed documents vide letter dated 11.01.2018 as per requirements of the Op dated 27.11.2013. Now the explanation of delay as provided by the complainants and OP argues it is a vague one that the complainants were sick for such long period and without any day to day explanation, the story of the complainant is not acceptable and it is not true and correct.
We have carefully perused the petition for condonation of delay as well as the written objection filed by the Ops and the documents filed by the contesting parties in support of their respective contentions and heard argument at length. It is stated by the complainants that the complaint has been filed after 2 years and 6 months from the statutory period of limitation in view of Section 24A of the C. P. Act, 1986. In this respect the complainant no. 1 has stated that the complainant No. 1 has been suffering from Rheumatic Pain since 4th January 2016 and she has been under treatment till now. Her condition from January 2016 to September 2017 was so critical that it was fully impossible for her to leave the bed. The certificate of said doctor dated 20.11.2017 goes to show that complainant No. 2 was suffering from serious gynaecological problem since March 2017. It is evident from the record that the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainants on 26.02.2014. Therefore the cause of action arose on that date and it was the duty of the complainants to prefer this complaint within 25.02.2016 to avoid the question of limitation but according to the complainants due to their illness they could not file the same. To substantiate their contention the complainants have filed only medical certificates of the treating doctor respectively. But there is no pathological or radiological report to show that the complainants were actually suffering from the Rheumatic pain or serious Gynaecological problem as mentioned in the certificates during the relevant period. But a mere certificate of doctor for such long illness is not sufficient proof to substantiate his case for condonation of such a huge period of delay.
Section 24A of the Act prescribed the limitation period for admission of complaint by the Consumer Fora it reads as follows:
“24A. Limitation Period.- (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.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay”.
In this respect complainant has relied on some Ruling i.e. (1) FA No. 1415 of 2016 before the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi and (2) Consumer Complaint No. 04/2016 before the Hon’ble SCDRC, Deharadun. But the two rulings are not relevant with this complaint.
The Ops have also filed some Rulings reported in II (2014) CPJ 44 (NC) and I (2014) CPJ 10A (CN) (HP).
We have carefully perused the abovementioned judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission. In the said judgment the Hon’ble National Commission has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (IV 2011 CPJ 63 SC) as well as other judgments passed by the Apex Court. After going through the said judgment we are of the opinion that the said ruling is applicable in the case in hand because in the instant petition day to day delay has not been explained by the Complainants.
In the case in hand also no detailed history has been mentioned by the doctor regarding Complainant No. 1 who was suffering from Rheumatic Pain. The period of ailment mentioned is from January 2016 to September 2017. But there is no cogent document or ground shown by the complainant No. 1 what prevented her from filing the complaint before January 2016, when the claim has been repudiated by the Ops on 26.02.2014. On the other hand, as per certificate of the doctor regarding complainant No. 2, who was suffering from serious Gynaecological problem since March 2017, but there is no cogent document or ground shown by the complainant No. 2 what prevented her from filing the complaint before 26.02.2016, when the claim has been repudiated by the Ops on 26.02.2014. Moreover, no pathological and radiological reports have been filed by the Complainant No. 2 to substantiate the medical certificate issued by the treating doctor. Moreover, based on which reports the doctor came to the conclusion that she was suffering from such ailments, the picture is not at all clear to us. Therefore having regard to the abovementioned judgments we are of the view that as the medical certificates issued by the doctor suffers from some lacuna, the same cannot be accepted towards the reason for delay in preferring this complaint. Mere certificates of doctor for such long illness are not sufficient proof to substantiate their case for condonation of such a huge period of delay.
So as the Complainants have failed to satisfy us with cogent explanation for delay in filing the complaint, we are not inclined to allow the petition for condonation of delay. As the delay is not condoned the complaint is liable to be dismissed as being barred by limitation.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 150/2018 be and the same filed by the complainants is dismissed on contest being barred by limitation. There is no order as to costs.
Let free copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Jayanti Maitra (Ray) DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
President
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman DCDRF,Purba Bardhaman
