^{UNIONTERRITORY,CHANDIGARH}

Nitu Singh w/o Sh. Raj Kumar c/o Sh. Om Vir Singh, Resident of House No.4, Gali No.1, Durgra Puri Extension, Shahdra, Delhi Also r/o C-271, Govindpuram, Ghaziabad, now r/o c/o K.V. Quarter, Type IV, 3 BRD, Air Force, Station, Chandigarh.

                                      ^{... Appellant/Complainant.}

^Versus

1.      

2       

 ^{.…..Respondents/Opposite Parties} 

BEFORE:

Argued by:Sh.Rupesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case, as alleged by the complainant, are that she purchased a second hand Hyundai Santro car, bearing registration No.DL-01-CM-0625 from one Sh. Virender Sharma r/o New Delhi. The said vehicle was insured for the period from 30.10.2009 to 29.10.2010 (Annexure C-2).  After purchase of the vehicle, in the month of March, 2010, the complainant informed the opposite parties vide letter dated 23.3.2010 (Annexures C-3 & C-4) to transfer the policy in her name, and that the registration was yet to be transferred.  However, the opposite parties failed to do so.  The vehicle was finally transferred in the name of the complainant on 19.3.2010 as per the information(Annexure C-5) received under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 

3.                    It was stated that on 24.7.2010 brother in law of the complainant, Sh. Om Vir Singh Sherron alongwith his family went to the Centra Mall, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh in the said car. He parked the said car near the footpath.  However, at about 11:40 p.m., when he returned, he found the car missing.  Accordingly, he informed the local police and FIR (Annexure C-7) was registered. Intimation about the theft of car was also provided to the opposite parties vide letter dated 26.7.2010 (Annexure C-9).  It was further stated that one of the surveyors came to the complainant and got the claim form filled on 3.9.2010 (Annexure C-10).  However, the opposite parties vide letter dated 16.10.2010 (Annexure C-11), without even waiting for the untraced report, closed the claim, as no claim.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. 

4.                    In their written reply, the Opposite Parties 

5.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

7.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant.

8.                    We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.                    The Order of the District Forum was assailed, on the ground, that the District Forum wrongly dismissed the complaint, being barred by limitation, ignoring the fact that the complainant earlier also filed C.C. No.651/2012 before it, which was dismissed in default on 16.07.2013. Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Versus Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC). The appellant maintained that 

10.                  The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the second complaint was wrongly dismissed being barred by limitation. He further submitted that the respondents till date did not send any intimation or send any No Claim decision to the complainant and, as such, the cause of action was still alive. 

“Till now, I had been waiting for the response from the good offices of the Oriental Insurance Co.  But, recently, I was handed over the subject letter of your office by Sh. Virender Sharma, the first owner of the vehicle.…….”

Thus, it is evident from the letter dated 28.03.2011 that the complainant was having the letter dated 16.10.2010 (C-10) on 28.03.2011, whereby, the claim was filed as No Claim. The District Forum was, thus, right in concluding that if it gave the benefit of the previous period to the complainant, the period of limitation definitely started running from at least 28.3.2011, i.e. when she wrote the letter (Annexure C-13) and, as such, the complaint was liable to be filed by the complainant within two years i.e. on or before 28.03.2013.   

11.                  The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.                  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

13.                  Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.                  The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

26.06.2014

         [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER [RETD.]

                                                                                                                       [DEV RAJ]

Sd/-

^{[PADMA PANDEY]}

^MEMBER

cmg