CC/196/2015

 

No. DF/ Central/

SURENDER GAUR S/O SH. B.K. SHARMA R/O 203, VPO SAMALKHA, NEW DELHI-110037

 

... COMPLAINANT

 V/S

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD CBO 21 101184 , ARYA SAMAJ ROAD, HOTEL LANDMARK, 3RD FLOOR, KAROL BAG, DELHI-110005

   ... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Quorum: Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member

ManjuBalaSharma , Member

 

 

ORDER Dated:  30.08.2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

 

1. This complaintwasfiled on 09-07-2015 and complainant alleged that his car DL 2CAD 3981 was insured with the OP vide policy no271201/31/2008/1702 for  sum of Rs. 5,00,00/-for the period 23.1.2008 to 22.1.2009. It is alleged that on 15.6.2008the insured vehicle was stolen fromthe placewhen it was parked in Panipat Haryana. The theft was immediately informed to thePCR at number 100 and accordingly an FIR no. 258 dated 19.6.2008 U/s 379 IPC was registered at Sonipat Haryana.OP vide letter dated 26.8.2010 demanded some documents from the complainant. The complainant informed to the OP that  as loan amount was not repaid to the bank , he was not able to submit NOC from ICICI bank. Complainant vide letter dated 04.09.2014 deposited  NOC from ICICI bank.Thereafter vide letter dated 12.01.2015complainant deposited duplicatekeys of the vehicle. OP vide letter dated 3.3.2015 informed thecomplainant that hisclaim could not be settled and thesame has already been closed. Hence, it is prayed that OP be directed to payRs 5 Lakhs towards insuranceclaim of theft of car ,Rs. 1 Lakh towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2.In reply, OP admittedthe policy of the vehicle and denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint. OP also objected that this forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. OP received intimation of the alleged incident on 24.6.2008  i.e. after the gap of 9days in violation of the terms and conditions of the said policy.    OP clarified that FIR of the incident was lodged after  a gap of 5 days at SonipatHaryana. The present complaint is barred by the limitation. On 26.8.2010 OP requested the complainant to submit relevant documents along with the intimation that in case of failure OP will close the claim with no further correspondence. Hence complaint be dismissed with cost.

3. In support of complaint complainant filed his own affidavit along with documents Ex. CW1/A and Ex. CW1/B.   In support of reply OP filed affidavit of Sunil Gupta, Divisional Manager along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex. R-9.   Both the parties filed their written arguments. 

 

4. 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 complaint is time barred?

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

( d) Relief?

 

5. It is admitted by the OP that motor Insurance Certificate Cum Policy of thevehicle DL 2C AD 3981 was issued with terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant. Hence complainant is a consumer.

 

6. It is admitted by the complainant that OP has received letter dated 26.8.2010 issued by the OP demanding some document. A mere perusal of this letter dated 26.8.2010 (Ex. R9) clarify that the complainant was informed by the OP to comply this letter within 10 days from the receipt of letter otherwise OP will close the claim with no furthercorrespondence. It itself an information to repudiate the claim of  the complainant. Therefore, in this matter the cause of action arose after 10 days from 26.8.2010 while this complaint was filed by the complainant on 09/07/2015 i.e. after the lapse of 4 Years and 10 months approximately. Such huge delay is not explained satisfactorily by the complainant norcomplainant applied for condonation of delay in filing this complaint.  Therefore, sufficient cause for not filing complaint within limitation period is not proved. 

 

 

7. Looking to the above facts and circumstances ,in our opinion this complaint is barred by limitation under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act.Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. As this complaint is not maintainable ,there is no need to express our opinion on rest of the points for consideration and complaint be dismissed. Both the parties will bear their own cost and file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on this ……………..