Haryana

Karnal

CC/460/2022

Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

09 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 460 of 2022

                                                          Date of instt.08.08.2022

                                                          Date of Decision 09.08.2022

 

Gurmeet Singh age 29 years son of Shri Pal Singh, resident of village Chora, near Water Tank, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Punjab National Bank Branch at village Gheer, Tehsil and District Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Mugal Canal, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

 

3.     Deputy Director of Agriculture Department, near Old Court, Karnal.

 

                                                                    …..Opposite Parties.

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

 

 Present: Sh. Pal Singh father of complainant in person.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is an agriculturist by profession and owner in possession of agriculture land measuring 12 kanal-5 marals situated in village Chora, Tehsil and District Karnal. The complainant is having saving account in the bank of the OP no.1 and is also having Kisan Credit Card, vide account no.3264008800014682 issued by the OP no.1. The complainant has also taken insurance policy under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) scheme from the OP no.2 through OP no.1 and the premium of insurance has been directly deducting from the account of complainant. Unfortunately, in the season of Rabi 2018 the crop of the complainant got destroyed due to the natural disaster. The complainant immediately informed the Agriculture Department regarding the damages of crop and accordingly officials of the Agriculture Department as well as the officials of the insurance company got surveyed the damaged crop. The complainant has suffered a total loss of Rs.70,000/- due to natural disaster, as such complainant is entitled to said amount from the OPs because he is regularly paying the premium to the OPs. Complainant requested the OPs several times to give compensation to the complainant regarding his damaged crop, but OPs did not any heed to the request of complainant and lastly refused to pay the same. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             Submission on the point of admissibility heard. Record perused.

3.             A careful perusal of the file reveals that the complainant has alleged that in the season of Rabi 2018 his crop was damaged due to natural disaster and he has filed the present complaint on 08.08.2022 after the gap of approximately four years.

4.             Now the question for consideration before us is that whether the present complaint is well within period of limitation or not?

5.             Limitation for filing a complaint has been described under Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is reproduced as under:-

1. The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

6.             As per aforesaid Section of Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing a complaint is of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the present complaint, complainant had alleged that in the season of Rabi 2018 his crop was damaged due to natural disaster and survey was conducted on 04.10.2018 by the Agriculture Department as well as representative of OP no.2. During the period from the year 2018 to 2022 there is no correspondence between the parties. Moreover, there is no separate application, on the file to condone the delay or has not made prayer for condonation in the prayer para of the complaint and no sufficient cause has been shown by the complainant for not filing the complaint within limitation period The cause of action has arisen in the year 2018 but complainant has filed the present complaint in the year 2022 i.e. after the gap of four years. Hence, as per the provision of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the present complaint is hopelessly time barred and the same is liable to be dismissed

7.             Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 09.08.2022

 

  President,       

District Consumer Disputes                          

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

                      (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)           

                          Member                           Member