BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 217 of 2015                                                                          

                                                           Date of Institution         :    7.12.2015

                                                          Date of Decision   :    28.7.2016         

Amrik Singh, (aged about 35 years) son of Sh.Gurmeet Singh, village Patli Dabar tehsil and distt. Sirsa.

            ….Complainant.                     

                   Versus

1.  Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Plot No.1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperubadur Taluk, Kapennepuram distt. Tamilnadu-602105 through its authorized signatory.

2. Raja Motors Hyundai, Dabwali Road, Sirsa through its prop./partner/Manager/ authorized signatory.

3. National Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Sirsa (Issuing Cover Note No.400910803360, book no. 40091032135 of vehicle no. HR24M/3455).

4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, City Thana Road, Suratgarhia Bazar, Sirsa.

5. Bharti, AXA General Insurance Co. through its Manager at Sirsa c/o Raja Motors, Dabwali Road, Sirsa (issuing Policy no.HAX/S9128361 commencing from 23.4.2015 to 22.4.2016 of vehicle No.HR24M/3455.

6. Smt.Bimla Devi, Agent, United India Insurance Co, City Thana Road, Suratgarhia Bazar, Sirsa.

                                                                             ..…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT

          SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh.Ganesh Sethi,  Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties no.1,2&6.

Sh.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties no.3&4.

Sh.R.K.Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.5.

ORDER

                   In brief, complainant case is that at the time of his marriage, a new brand of Santro car was gifted to his wife by his in-laws. He got registered the car with the Registering Authority vide registration no.HR24M/3455. It is further case of the complainant that he get insured his vehicle with Op no.3 first time for the period commencing from 24.2.2010 to 23.2.2011 and in the cover note manufacturing year was shown as 2010. After this, he got another insurance cover from Op no.3 for the period 24.2.2011 to 23.2.2012 and this time also at the instances of Ops no.1 and 2, Op no.3 shown manufacturing year 2010. Thereafter, he got his car insured with Op no.4 for the periods from 15.3.2012 to 14.3.201,3 from 6.9.2013 to 5.9.2014 and 9.4.2014 to 8.4.2014. In all the insurance covers,  Op no.4 shown manufacturing year as 2010. As alleged, all this happened due to collusion between Ops no.1 to 4. At time of further insurance in 2015 from Op no.5, it has been disclosed that the car was having manufacturing year 2009 instead of 2010. As alleged, Ops adopted unfair trade practice and sold to him old car manufactured in 2009 and Op no.6 is Agent of Op no.4. Hence, this complaint challenging the act and conduct of unfair trade practice adopted by the Ops and for the relief sought for as detailed in the complaint itself.

2.                On notice, all the opposite parties appeared through their counsel. Ops no.3&4 filed their written version alleging that insurance policies have been issued on the basis of registration certificate wherein Model of vehicle has been described as 2010 and there is no deficiency on their part.

3.                Whereas, Ops no.1 and 2 filed an application for dismissal of complaint being hopelessly time barred  and there is no written version from the ops no.5 and 6.

4.                Complainant contested the application of Ops no.1 and 2 by filing written reply.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case file carefully.

6.                It is an admitted fact on the record that the car in question has been purchased in the year 2010 and complainant filed the present complaint in the year 2015. In the photo copy of registration certificate issued by Registering Authority, (M.V.HR24) ,Sirsa, manufacturing year of the car has been shown 2010. Registration certificate is in the name of complainant. After the purchase of car, he got insured it five times and all times, manufacturing year has been shown 2010. It is not believable that the fact of manufacturing year 2009 of the car as alleged by the complainant was not in his notice. In our view, it is only after-thought plea and a result of legal engineering only to cover the limitation that this fact came to his notice in the year 2015. The Legislative prescribed the limitation to file a consumer complaint settled under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In Section 24-A, it is clearly mentioned that (1) “The District Forum, 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”. In this case, it is very clear that the cause of action to file the present complaint has arisen to the complainant at the time of purchase of car or moreover, at the time of registration of the car which happened in the year 2010. As such, there is no reason to proceed the complaint further.     

7.                Resultantly, this complaint is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                            President,

Dated: 28.7.2016.                              Member.           District Consumer Disputes

                                                                        Redressal Forum, Sirsa.