CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

         Case No.224/2023

MR. NARENDER SINGH

S/O SH. JAGVEER SINGH

R/O F-93, KATWARIA SARAI,

HAUS KHAS, SOUTH DELHI,

NEW DELHI- 110016                                                       …..COMPLAINANT

Vs.   

1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/ CONCERNED PERSON/

BRANCH MANAGER

OFF: 1^ST FLOOR, A-12, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL

ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD,

NEW DELHI- 110044

HEAD OFFICE: RELIANCE CENTER,

SOUTH WING, 4^TH FLOO, OFF: WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY SANTACRUZ (EAST) MUMBAI – 400055

2. SUNIL JAIN

INVESTIGATOR OF RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE

SHOP NO. 107, AGGARWAL TOWER,

PLOT NO.3, LSC, CU-BLOCK,

PITAL PURA, DELHI – 110034                                         …..RESPONDENTS

Date of Institution-19.07.2023

Date of Order- 08.12.2023

  O R D E R

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

1. The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of OP.

2. The complainant purchased a car bearing registration no.DL-8CAC-0993 was insured with OP1 from 18.10.2016 to 17.10.2017 vide policy no. 1315262311035803.

3. On 30.08.2017, the said vehicle was stolen from the complainant’s office. He registered an E-FIR dated 30.08.2017. He visited the P.S. Vasant Vihar on the very next day i.e. 31.08.2017 and lodged a FIR.

4. A claim was registered with OP1 on 01.09.2017. The complainant received a letter from OP1 through OP2 i.e. the investigator of OP1 requiring several documents and one car key. The complainant provided the same. Thereafter, OP1 and OP2 refused to approve the claim of the insured amount stating that the vehicle was not stolen.

5. In January, 2023 the complainant received summons from the court of Sh. Kapil Gupta Ld. M.M. Patiala House Courts, Delhi to appear on 30.05.2023 in FIR No.26651/2017 titled as State Vs. Saurabh. The complainant appeared in Patiala House Court and discovered that his car was lying at the Malkhana of PS Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.

6. The complainant alleges that he has been regularly following with OPs for approval of his claim. He has always been given false assurance. Eventhough, the vehicle in question has been recovered, the period of plying the said car i.e. 10 years is over.

7. The complainant states that the cause of action arose when OP failed their duty to refund the claim. It further arose when several reminders were sent to OP and his query remained unanswered.

8. The complainant has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 3 years and 11 months in filling the complaint. In the said application the complainant states that OP has denied the claim of the complainant regarding theft of his car in year 2017. He received summons on 30.05.2023 from the court of MM. Hence, the delay in filing the delay should be condoned

9. It is admitted that the complainant’s car was stolen in year 2017 and his claim for the said car was rejected in the year 2017.

10. Section 24A of consumer protection Act 1986 is as follows:

24A Limitation period—

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.

<>11.Section 24A of the Act began to run from 23rd March, 1988 and therefore, the complaint before the Commission against the Insurance Company for deficiency in service, whether for non issue of claim forms or for not processing the claim under the policy, ought to have been filed within two years thereof. As noticed above, the complaint was in fact filed on or after 24th October, 1997, which was clearly barred by time. It is pertinent to note that in the complaint before the Commission, though there was an averment that the Bank had not disclosed to the appellant whether any amount had been received by them from the Insurance Company against the claim preferred on 14th July, 1988, but appellant's categorical stand therein was that it was because of the pendency of the criminal litigation that they could not make a claim in respect of the policy for the loss suffered and time and again they had been requesting the Insurance Company to send the claim forms, which request was not acceded to by the Insurance Company, and it shows that the appellant was not depending on the claim stated to have been made by the Bank with the Insurance Company.

12. Hon’ble National Commission in Gujarat State Fertilizers & ... vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has observed that the cause of action starts from the date of repudiation. Any complaint filed after two years from the date of repudiation is barred by limitation and no amount of further correspondence can extend the limitation period.

13. The complainant’s vehicle was stolen on 30.08.2017. A claim was filed in 2017. Admittedly, the said claim was repudiated in the year 2017 by the OP. The vehicle was later traced and summons were received from the Court of MM on 30.05.2023. These summons will not extend the period of limitation and the complaint is dismissed as being time barred. Hence, the matter is dismissed.

14. File be consigned to record room. Order to be uploaded on the website.