Punjab

Sangrur

CC/96/2016

Lakhvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Padam Cars Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Jaspreet Singh

20 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  96

                                                Instituted on:    08.01.2016

                                                Decided on:       20.09.2016

 

Lakhvir Singh Sarpanch S/o Sukhdev Singh, resident of Village Satike, Tehsil Budhlada, Distt. Mansa.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Padam Cars (P) Ltd. College Road, Opp. Kamal Palace, Sangrur through Manager.

2.     Padam Cars (P) Ltd. Main Patiala Rajpura Road, Bahadurgarh, Patiala through Manager.

3.     The New India Assurance Company Limited, 7, Chhoti Baradari, The Mall, Patiala 147 001 through Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri J.S.Ladda,  Advocate.

For OPs No.1&2       :       Shri Amit Aggarwal, Advocate.

For OP. No.3            :       Shri Ashish Kumar, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Lakhvir Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a car Chevrolet Sail in the year 2013 after taking loan from Indus Ind Bank and the same was got insured from OP number 3 through OP number 1 on 3.5.2013 which was valid up to 2.5.2014.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that unfortunately the car in question met with an accident on 7.6.2013 after one month and four days of its purchase near PS Kalian Wali, Distt. Sirsa, of which FIR number 110 was lodged. It is further averred that the complainant had already paid Rs.98,000/- to the Ops for getting the car registered, but the OP number 1 did not get the same registered and the vehicle was got registered on 18.10.2013 It is further averred that the complainant get the car in question on spurdari and after that the car in question was sent to the OP number 2 for repairs, who prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.1,14,270/-. It is further stated that the complainant could not visit Op  number 2 for getting the car repaired as he was facing three cases. It is further stated that the complainant received two letters of surveyor i.e. 5.10.2013 and 7.11.2013, whereby he demanded certain documents.  Further case of the complainant is that he received a phone call in 1^st week of January, 2014 from OP number 2 that the complainant needs to pay Rs.15,000/- as token money to get the car repair started and he deposited Rs.15,000/- on 10.1.2014. It is further averred that in January, 2014 the complainant moved the application for reopening the claim file and to submit the documents, but no action was taken.  It is further averred that in the month of January, 2015 the complainant received letter from OP number 2 that the car was ready since 29.4.2014 and a total sum of Rs.1,30,734/- was pending towards the complainant.  It is further stated that on the intervention of OP number 2, OP number 3 demanded request application for reopening the claim case, which was submitted in the month of April, 2015 by the complainant, but nothing happened thereafter despite serving of legal notice upon the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay him the claim amount of Rs.1,90,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is barred by limitation.   On merits, it is stated that the complainant did not pay the registration charges at the time of purchasing the car. The registration charges were paid by the complainant on 16.10.2013 vide receipt number 13322 dated 16.10.2013 and further it is stated that the complainant paid the registration charges only after a period of five months. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             In reply filed by Op number 3, it is admitted that the car in question is insured with the OP number 3 for the period from 3.5.2013 to 2.5.2014 subject to the terms and conditions. It is stated further that at the time of insurance the car in question was having temporary registration number which was valid for thirty days only.  It is stated that after receipt of the intimation dated 19.7.2013 the OP number 3 appointed Er. SPJ Singh surveyor and loss assessor, who wrote the complainant letter dated 15.8.2013 to provide RC, road tax receipt and further requested to get the work started from the repairer, but thereafter the complainant did not bother to complete the requirements despite so many letters to the complainant i.e. 12.9.2013, 5.10.2013, 7.11.2013 and 15.8.2013, but all in vain.  Thus, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 4.12.2013 on the ground that at the time of accident the car of  the complainant was not got registered.  It is further stated that the complainant even breached the terms and conditions by informing the OP about the accident on 19.7.2013, whereas the accident took place on 7.6.2013.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C-3 copy of notification, Ex.C-4 copy of temp. registration, Ex.C-5 copy of FIR, Ex.C-6 copy of estimate, Ex.C-7 copy of ledger account, Ex.C-8 copy of reminder, Ex.C-9 copy of RC, Ex.C-10 copy of payment deposit receipt, Ex.C-11 copy of letter dated 9.1.2015, Ex.C-12 copy of legal notice dated 15.6.2015, Ex.C-13 copy of reply dated 10.7.2015 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1&2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of authority letter, Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of receipt and Ex.OP1&2/4 copy of ledger and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP-3/1 copy of policy, Ex.OP3/2 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP3/3 copy of intimation letter, Ex.OP3/4 copy of reminder, Ex.OP3/5 copy of letter, Ex.OP3/6 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.Op3/7 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the OP number 3 by getting insured his vehicle in question for the period from 3.5.2013 to 2.5.2014 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.15,752/-, as is evident from the copy of insurance cover note on record as Ex.C-2.  It is further an admitted fact that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 7.6.2013 of which FIR was recorded at PS Kalan Wali, Distt. Sirsa.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant intimated the OPs about the loss and the Ops appointed the surveyor to assess the loss, who assessed the loss under the policy.  Now, the question which arises for determination is whether the complaint of the complainant is maintainable or not as the same is barred by time  as contended by the learned counsel for the OP number 3.

 

8.             The Ops have raised an objection that the complaint is hopelessly barred by time and should be dismissed on this score alone as the complaint of the complainant has been filed only on 16.01.2016, whereas the claim of the complainant has already been repudiated vide letter dated 4.12.2013, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP3/6.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant even got served a legal notice upon OP number 3 on 15.6.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-12 and reply to that notice is Ex.C-13, as such, the complainant has a continuing cause of action and the complaint cannot be thrown on this ground alone.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that by mere giving a legal notice, it will not extend the time of limitation for filing of the complaint.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the Ops has cited P.M.S. Enterprises versus Delhi Development Authority 2005(1) CLT 460, wherein Delhi State Commission has held that mere filing of representations will not extend the time of limitation for filing the complaint. We feel that this citation is fully applicable in the circumstances of the case.  Further it is worth mentioning here that section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that the complaint should be filed before the Fora  within a period of two years of arising of cause of action.  But in the present case, the complainant has filed the present complaint only on 08.01.2016 without filing any application for condonation of delay or explaining any reasons for filing of the complaint after the period of limitation. Under the circumstances, without going further into the merits of the case, we feel that the present complaint is not maintainable before this forum as the same is barred by period of limitation.   Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that the District Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the circumstances of the case, we find that the complaint in hand deserves dismissal on this score alone.

 

9.             Without going further into the merits of the case, we dismiss the complaint only on the ground of limitation. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 20, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member