BEFORE THE SOUTH MUMBAI  DISTRICT  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                                                                                     O.No.

Complaint No.SMF/MUM/CC/2005/286

   Date of filing : 21/12/2005                                                                                                     

                                                                                       Date of Order:  28/09/2017

Mukul Amratlal Sonawala,

165-B, Sonawala Estate, N.M. Refinary

Compound Building, Tardeo,

Mumbai – 400 007.                                                                 ….. Complainant.    

  V/s.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Registered Office at Oriental House,

Asafali Road, New Delhi,

Regional Office No.2, Oriental House,

7, J.Tata Road, Churchgate,

Mumbai – 400 020.                                                                ….. Opposite Party

                        Coram:

Shri. G.K. Rathod             :   Hon’ble President

Shri. S.R. Sanap                :   Hon’ble Member

Appearance:   For  Complainant                 –          Adv. Harshad H. Trivedi

                          For Opponent                      -           Adv. Shri. A.S. Vidyarthi

// J U D G M E N T //

PER : SHRI. G.K. RATHOD – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

                        The Complainant’s case in brief  stated as under :

                        The Complainant has filed his complaint U/sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for compensation, for the loss caused to the Complainant on the ground of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  It is contended that the Complainant is a Registered Stock & Share Broker with the National Stock Exchange and SEBI.  As per the Stock Exchange Rules, since 1996,  Stock Exchange itself hire the services of the Opposite Party on behalf of all the members, an Insurance Company by paying the premium to Stock Exchange.  The National Stock Exchange used to pay the premium with the Insurance Company and the Opponent recovered the said premium amount from all the members by debiting the Bank Account as  rules, for covering the various risks as per the policy terms and conditions and the insured amount is Rs. 25,00,000/- for each claim in policy No. 120000/43/45/2006/1337 period from 1996  and date of cause between May 1999 and June 1999.  The claim was repudiated by the Opponent on 22/12/2005 and the complaint is filed on 21/12/2005. 

(2)                    Thereafter, the delay condonation application to file the complaint filed by the Complainant on 15/11/2011   and the Opponent has raised the strong objection that after period of 6 years without filing delay condonation application, complaint is filed and from the date of cause of action, delay condonation application is filed after 11 years. This application is also pending for order.

(3)                    To rebut the allegations of the Complainant, the Opponent has filed written version and denied all the contents of the complaint in toto.  It is further submitted that the complaint is not tenable before this Forum as the subject matter of this complaint is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act.  It is also submitted that the claim intimation has been considerably delayed.  The subject matter is of a civil nature.  It is further submitted that the Complainant was specifically required to comply with all the requirements under SEBI Rules & Regulations 1992 but he has not complied any terms and conditions. The subject matter involved complicated questions and intricarcies, therefore, on  all these grounds and as stated in the written statement  the complaint needs to be dismissed.

(4)                    From the above facts following points arouse  for our determination.   

(5)                    From the contents of the complaint, written statement, affidavit evidence, written arguments, documents placed on record by the parties, it appears that the cause of action was arose in the month of May 1999, the complaint would have been filed within  2 years but the complaint is filed on 21/12/2005 approximately after 6 years.  It is pertinent to note that after complaint is filed application for condonation of delay to file the complaint is filed on 15/11/2011, it means after 11 years from the date of cause of action.  There is no sufficient grounds for condone the delay.  On that ground also, the complaint application filed by the Complainant is liable for dismissed. We found substance in the submissions of the Opponent that the subject matter not covered under Consumer Protection Act and relief claimed in the complaint cannot be considered, and therefore, the complaint is liable for dismissed, as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent and it appears that the claim of the Complainant was rightly repudiated by the Opponent.

(6)        In view of our above observation, we came to the conclusion that the Complainant’s complaint deserves to be dismissed and accordingly answered point Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative.  

 (7)                   Hence the following order :

//O R D E R//

1. The complaint stands dismissed.

2. Parties to bear their own costs.

3. Certified copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.       

 (Shri. S.R. Sanap)                                       (Shri.G.K. Rathod)

  Hon’ble  Member                                       Hon’ble President

Note:-  As the pleadings, affidavit, documents, written arguments of the parties are in English, the order in the proceeding is passed for the better knowledge of the parties in English.

vns