Before,

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna

Appeal  No. 238 of 2019

Mrs. Kawita Singh, Wife of Mr. Liladhar Prasad Singh,  Road No. 24D, Rajiv Nagar, Patna- 800024                               ............... Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through the Managing Director, 6A, Ramabai Ambedkar Road, Sangamvadi, Pune- 411001
2. The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301/302, Kaushalya Estate, Bander Bagicha, Dak Bunglow Chouraha, Patna- 800001

                                                                      ........... Respondent/ Opposite Parties

Husband of the appellant Mr. Liladhar Prasad Singh appeared in person

Counsel for Respondent- Adv. Alok Kumar Shahi

Before:

Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member)

Raj Kumar Pandey (Member)

Dated: 24.06.2022

Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member)

Order

1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant of Complaint No. 309 of 2018 before District Forum (Consumer Protection), Patna against its order dated 27.06.2019 by which complaint was dismissed on the following grounds:-

1. That the complaint was time barred. So, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear it.
2. That there was no deficiency in service provided by the opposite parties to the complainant.

2. The case of complainant is that her motor vehicle Tata Sumo Victa having registration No. BR-1-AP-8729 was insured comprehensively with O.P No. 1 under policy No. 2401792311006511 for the period 14.03.2010 to 13.03.2011. Her husband Liladhar Prasad Singh was traveling from Farakka to Patna by that vehicle on the night of 14/15.01.2011. The vehicle went out of order at N.H. 31 near Bhawara Bridge within Baisai, P.S. of District Purnea in Bihar, So, he parked it there. At about 5:00 A.M of 15.01.2011 a running truck having registration No. AS-01-BC-9534 came from behind and hit the back side of her vehicle due to which it was badly damaged. Liladhar Prasad Singh gave information about the accident to the local P.S. which made station diary entry No. 308 dated 15.01.2011 about that. The complainant informed about the accident  to O.P. No. 1 also. On 18.01.2011 the vehicle was brought to Shankar Motors at Patna which is an authorized service center of Tata Motors. The complainant informed the Vice-Chairman of O.P. No. 1 about this development also through a letter. Shri Aalok Kumar, Surveyor was appointed by the O.Ps to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss and on his verbal order, the service center started the repair works. The service center gave estimate for repair to the complainant on 24.01.2011 on the basis of which she made payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- (One lakh fifty thousand) in advance to them on 17.02.2011. Later on, the O.Ps informed the complainant to remain present on 17.02.2011 at the site of repair when second survey of the vehicle was scheduled to be done by another independent surveyor K.K. Tripathi. The complainant could not go to the site on 17.02.2011. However, she contacted K.K. Tripathi on the very next day and he informed her that the second survey of the vehicle was done on 17.02.2011 in her absence. On completion of repair works the service center made further demand of Rs. 50,000/- which was paid to them by the complainant. Thus, the complainant incurred a cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- in all over the repair of the vehicle.

Subsequently, the husband of complainant handed over the final bill of service centre to the Patna Branch of O.P. No.1 for payment. Thereafter, the vehicle was again taken to service center as directed by surveyor Tripathi on the time fixed by him, but instead of him surveyor Aalok Kumar came there and surveyed the repair works of the vehicle. On 23.05.2011 the husband of complainant requested Shri S.Sudarshan, Vice-Chairman of O.P. No. 1 through e-mail to pay the total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- spent by him over the repair of said vehicle but O.P. No. 1 sent to the complainant a sum of Rs. 38,581/- only by a cheque dated 19.05.2011 towards her claim. So, the complainant refused to accept that cheque and again made request to O.P. No. 1 to pay the entire amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as her claim but it was not considered. Hence, the case.

3. The complainant had asked for the following reliefs before the District Forum-

1. that O.P. No. 1 be directed to pay her total amount of claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- with 18% interest thereon w.e.f 18.01.2011.
2. that O.P. No. 1 be further directed to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant and her husband for mental agony and harassment sustained by them.
3. that O.P. No. 1 be further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant for physical harassment sustained by the complainant due to deficiency in service by the O.Ps.
4. that O.P. No. be also directed to pay Rs. 51,000/- to the complainant for cost of litigation.

4. The O.Ps have stated in their rejoinder that on receiving information about the aforesaid accident of the vehicle they appointed a surveyor to inspect the vehicle, assess the loss and report. The surveyor did the job  entrusted to him and submitted his report to them on 24.02.2011. Accordingly, they gave approval for the repair of the vehicle. The surveyor is an independent party having technical knowledge about the functions of motor vehicles and he possesses license by the State Government to assess the loss caused to any motor vehicle in any accident or otherwise. So, the insurance company is bound to make payment of any such claim to the extent of surveyor’s report only. It can’t make payment of any such claim beyond the surveyor’s report. They have further stated therein that they had informed the complainant about the estimate of repair cost given by the service centre on 26.04.2011 as per report of surveyor. Accordingly, they sent a cheque of Rs. 38,581/- to the complainant towards her claim which was refused by her. The complainant had infact got completely changed the body shell of the vehicle at the service center which was against the report of surveyor. The damaged portion of the body of the vehicle was repairable. So, there was no need of replacement of the body shell of the vehicle. The O.Ps had made payment of the calim of complainant on 19.05.2011. If the complainant was not satisfied with the claim amount, she should have filed the appeal within two years since that date. But she has come up with the appeal after long lapse of a period of seven years since 19.05.2011. So, her appeal is badly time barred. For these reasons the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. As stated earlier the District Forum has found and held that there was no deficiency in service provided by O.P. No. 1 to the complainant and also that the claim was badly time barred. Accordingly, it has dismissed the claim of complainant.
6. The grounds of appeal taken by the complainant (Appellant) in her memo of appeal are as under:-

1. Service request No. 17384943 registered with opposite parties on 13.07.2017 is still unresolved. Hence, cause of action still continues.
2. Body shell of vehicle was badly damaged during the immediate reckless repair work initiated as per verbal instruction of first surveyor Aalok Kumar and there was no response from the O.Ps for more than a fortnight despite best efforts of the complainant for reasons known to the O.Ps. Appointment of second surveyor by O.Ps remained a mystery for the complainant. Hence, there is a criminal deficiency in service by the O.Ps.
3. A complaint was made on 07.03.2019 to S.P. Patna for inclusion of hitting of parked breakdown vehicle by truck in which husband of complainant was sleeping was an attempt to murder him and the immediate reckless repair work initiated as per verbal instruction of first surveyor Aalok Kumar was a part of conspiracy to remove the proof. This complaint has been forwarded to S.S.P, Patna and D.G.P, Bihar by Hon’ble The Chief Minister, Bihar on 07.03.219, itself and to S.P. Patna vide C.M Secretariate Letter dated 12.03.2019 (annxure-7)

7. Heard, Mr. Liladhar Prasad Singh, husband of the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned order and L.C.R. also perused the record of appeal.
8. The points for determination are formulated as under:-

1. Whether the application of complainant filed before the District Forum was time barred?
2. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?

9. Point (A)- As admitted by the complainant the O.Ps decided her claim as early as on 19.05.2011 and sent to her a cheque of Rs. 38,581/- only against repair of her vehicle which she refused to accept as it was insufficient. So, the cause of action arose to her on that very day. The period of limitation prescribed by Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is two years only from the date of cause of action. It reads as under:

“Section 24A Limitation Period- (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.”

(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a complaint may be entertained after the period of specified in sub section (1) if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, 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 National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

In the present case the complaint was filed in the District Forum on 20.07.2018 i.e after lapse of more than seven years from the date on which the cause of action arose and was admitted in a mechanical way in utter violation of Section 24A reproduced above. There is no acceptable explanation on behalf of the complainant for such inordinate delay in filing the complaint. So, sub-section (2) of Section 24A is also not attracted in this case. Therefore, the first ground taken in the memo of appeal and mentioned in para no. 6(a) hereinbefore is not at all acceptable. As such we find and hold that the complaint is badly time barred.

Accordingly, we affirm the finding of learned District Forum on this point.

10.  Point (B)- on considering the case of complainant and the reply given by the O.Ps, it is found that the actual dispute between them is with regard to the quantum of claim amount. Except it there is hardly any visible deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. It has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that when the service center gave estimate for repair works the complainant ought to have waited for a reasonable time to know that upto which extent they could pay out of the estimated amount towards the repair of the vehicle as per terms and conditions of the policy and the report of surveyors who had inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss. But the complainant did not wait for that and proceeded unilaterally to get the vehicle repaired in her own way so much so that she got the entire body shell of the vehicle replaced by a new one, though it was not at all necessary, instead of repair works directed by the surveyors. So, how could the O.Ps pay to the complainant the entire amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- spent by her over the replacement of body shell of the vehicle. It was not at all permissible in view of the surveyor’s report. It has further been argued on their behalf that they had already sent a cheque of Rs. 38,581/- to the complainant towards the final settlement of her claim on the basis of the surveyor’s report read with the terms and conditions of policy but the complainant refused to accept the same. So, there has been no deficiency in service on their part and the insurance company (O.P. No. 1) is legally not liable to pay the excess amount spent by the complainant over the replacement of body shell of the vehicle.

                      In this context we would like to refer to the lower paragraph of the impugned order at page 6 which discloses that in this regard the complainant has stated at one place in the complaint that on receiving information given by her to the O.Ps, they appointed Aalok Kumar as surveyor and the repair works were started on his verbal order, but at another place (para-16) she has stated that when the O.Ps did not take any action on the information of accident of the vehicle given by her then on 17.02.2011 she herself directed the service center (Shankar Motors Pvt. Ltd) to start the repair work according to the estimate given by them. The District Forum has observed in its order that these two statements of the complainant are self contradictory.

              It also found on the record that the O.Ps had informed the complainant on 01.02.2011 that there was no need to replace the body shell of the vehicle because all ‘child parts’ for repair of the damage cause to the vehicle were available in the service center. So, considering all these facts it is found and held that there is no merit in the other two grounds also taken in favour of the appeal and mentioned in para no. 6(b) and (c) herein before. Accordingly, it is found and held that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The finding of District Forum is thus affirmed on this point also.

11. Point (C)- on the basis of foregoing discussions it is found and held that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. The complainant shall be at liberty to take the refused cheque of Rs. 38,581/- from the O.Ps.

Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey                                                                                                   Miss Gita Verma