Haryana

StateCommission

A/445/2015

BIJENDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

AMARDEEP HOODA

25 May 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                        First Appeal No.445  of 2015

                                      Date of Institution:29.04.2015

                                      Date of Decision : 25.05.2015

 

Brijender Singh son of Sh. Ganeshi, resident of Village Sondhand (Sondh), Tehsil Hodal, District Palwal.

                                                …Appellant-complainant

 

 

                                      Versus

 

1.      The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Service effected through local office at Old G.T. Road, near Petrol Pump, Palwal through its Manager. (Insurer of Combine Harvester)

2.      Oriental Bank of Commerce, Hassanpur Road, Hodal through its Manager (Financer of Combine Harvester)

                                          …Respondents-opposite parties

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

Present:     Mr.  Amardeep Hooda, Advocate for the appellant.

 

                                       O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                     Complaint filed by the appellant on 09.03.2015 was dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (in short District Forum) vide impugned order dated 31.3.2015 and feeling aggrieved therefrom, he has preferred this appeal.

2.      It was alleged by the complainant that his Combine Harvester was being transported from Mathura to Palwal in a Trolla (long goods vehicle)  on 24.3.2011 which turned turtle and machine fell down. When he went to the spot Harvester machine was lying there. He went to Mathura to arrange some other private vehicle to shift his machine, but, due to night no vehicle was available. In the morning when he came to the spot, machine was found missing. FIR No.73 dated 29.4.2011 was registered at Police Station Jamuna Par. Information was given to opposite party No.1 on 25.3.2011. He submitted his claim before the opposite party, but was repudiated vide letter dated 13.6.2013. Previously he filed complaint bearing No.67 on 14.9.2012 before the District Forum, Palwal, but was withdrawn on 21.8.2014 due to some technical fault. So the complaint was in time.

3.      Arguments heard. File perused.

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that initially the complaint was filed by him on 24.9.2012 which was within limitation and the complaint was withdrawn to remove technical defect with permission to file fresh complaint which is clear from the perusal of the order dated 21.8.2014. Thereafter, he agitated before Permanent Lok Adalat, but, his petition was dismissed vide order dated 5.2.2015. Thereafter, he filed this complaint on 09.03.2015. In this way his complaint was within time. Impugned order dated 31.3.2015 is altogether against the law and be set aside.

5.      This argument is of no avail. Previous complaint was filed on 14.9.2012, but was withdrawn by the complainant to remove some technical defect on 21.8.2014. Instead of filing fresh complaint after removing technical defect he approached Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22 (1) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. His request was declined by the Permanent Lok Adalat on 05.2.2015 and thereafter, he filed this complaint. Neither, he filed an application under Section 14(2) of Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay for agitating the matter previously before the Consumer Forum and thereafter before the Lok Adalat nor he filed an application under Section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to condone the delay. When his complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.8.2014 he was not allowed to get benefit as provided under Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.

6.      The complaint has been filed after more than two years. Neither delay in filing complaint has been explained nor there was any request for condonation of delay. Therefore, delay cannot be condoned in routine by the Forum without there being any request. When complaint was filed after two years it was not maintainable as prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 according to which complaint is to be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action.

7.      Reference to this effect can be made to case law cited as V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) Versus Anita Sena Fernandes 2011 CTJ 1 (supreme court) CP) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-

“Section 24A (1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action.  In other words, the consumer forums to not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.    This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under section 24A (2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under section 24 a (1).  If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under Section 24a(2), the consumer Forums will have no option but to dismiss the same.”

          The present case is fully covered by V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) Versus Anita Sena Fernandes (Supra) and as such the complaint filed the complainant deserved to be dismissed.

8.      It is clear that impugned order dated 31.3.2015 is well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and same is dismissed.

 

May 25^th, 2015             Urvashi Agnihotri        R.K. Bishnoi

                                      Member                      Judicial Member

                                      Addl.Bench                          Addl. Bench.

R.K.