Haryana

StateCommission

A/934/2016

YADVINDER SINGH BAPA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NAMIT KHURANA

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :  934 of 2016

Date of Institution: 06.10.2016

Date of Decision :  09.11.2016

 

Yadvinder Singh Bapa aged 42 years Son of Sh. Nishan Singh, resident of Village Bapa P.O. Radaur, Sub-Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhari, Distt. Yamuna Nagar

 

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      The Oriental Insurance Compnay Limited, having its one of branch office opposite Hindu Girls College, Ambala Road, Jagadhari, Teh. Jagadhari Distt. Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

2.      The Oriental Insurance Compnay Limited, having its Regd. Head Office, Oriental House Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 through its Branch Manager.

3.      The Oriental Insurance Compnay Limited, having its Regional Office at LIC Building Second Floor, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt. through its Regional Manager.

4.      ICICI Bank Limited, having its branch office at Gobindpuri Road Near J.K. Residency, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhari, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, through its Manager.

 

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Sandeep Singh , Advocate for the appellant

                                                  

O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Yadvinder Singh Bapa- complainant is in appeal against the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      The complainant purchased 2^nd hand car being registration No. HR-03-E-9682 from one Umesh Bansal. He got the car financed from ICICI bank Limited- respondent No.4 for Rs.1,78,350/-.  The car was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited- respondents No.1 to 3 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for the period 07.02.2006 to 06.02.2007.  The registration certificate of the car was transferred in the name of complainant.  The car met with an accident.  First Information Report dated 24.01.2007 under Section 279/337/304A IPC was registered in Police Station Khizrabad, District Yamuna Nagar.  The car was totally damaged. The Insurance Company was also informed. The complainant alleged that the car was in the possession of respondent No.4.  He requested the Insurance Company to settle his claim but to no avail. Hence, the complaint.

3.      The respondent No.1 to 3, in their written version, pleaded that the Insurance Company was never informed about the alleged accident.  The complaint was beyond limitation.

4.      Respondent No.4 in its written version, pleaded that the complainant failed to make the repayment of loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement.  As on 07.10.2011 a sum of Rs.3,08,132/- were outstanding towards the complainant.  The respondent No.4 after obtaining ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the complainant took the car on Superdari from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class in a totally damaged condition.  The complainant did not make the payment of loan amount, so, the respondent No.4 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against him.

5.      Indisputably, the car met with an accident. FIR was lodged on 24.01.2007 while the complaint was filed on 01.07.2011.  Since, the complaint was not filed by the complainant within 2 years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen it was barred by limitation and therefore, it would be unnecessary to deal with the contentions touching upon the merits of the complaint.

6.      Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’) bars any forum set up under the Act, from admitting a complaint, unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date on which, the “cause of action”  has arisen.  The provision expressly casts a duty upon all the Fora not to admit a complaint filed beyond the period prescribed in the Section, unless the complainant satisfies the Consumer Forum, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date of on which the “cause of action” had arisen.

7.      In SBI Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (2009) 5 SCC 121,

dealing with the same provision, the Supreme Court has opined, thus:

“11…. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires the consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action.  The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown.  The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder.

12.    as a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing.  In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it.  If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside”.

8.      It has thus been held by the Supreme Court that Section 24A of the Act mandates that before admitting a complaint, all the Fora constituted under the Act, must examine whether or not the complaint under the Act has been preferred within two years from the date on which the “cause of action” has arisen.

9.      Explaining the meaning and import of the term “cause of action” in Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Company Vs. National Insurance Company and another (2009), 7, Supreme Court cases 768, the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

“The term “cause of action” is neither defined in the Act in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but is of wide import.  It has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual or right to sure.  Generally, it is described as “bundle of facts”, which if proved or admitted entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for.  Pithily stated, “cause of action” means the cause of action for which the suit if brought.  “cause of action” is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit”.

 10.   Tested on the touchstone of the afore-noted principle, the complaint preferred by the complainant on 01.07.2011 was barred by limitation and in the absence of an application for condonation of delay in filing the same in terms of the sub Section 2 of the Section 24A of the Act, it could not be admitted by the Fora below for adjudication. Moreover, the complainant did not get the registration certificate and the Insurance Policy transferred in his name. Thus, he had no insurable interest at the time of accident and he could not be ‘consumer’ qua Insurance Company. Hence the order under challenge requires no interference.  The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

 

Announced 09.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

DK