Order No. -23                                                                                 Dt.-07/08/2015

Sri Asoke Kumar Das, President

Complainant’s case in short is that he purchased one Bolero pick up van having registration no.WB-73B/8506 after taking finance from O.P.2. He insured his said vehicle with O.P. Insurance Company viz. Sundaram Allianz Insurance Co.Ltd. vide policy no. VGC018472300100 for the period from 19/10/2010 to 18/10/2011 . Complainant defaulted payment of EMI and so O.P.2 demanded arrear payable against the said finance/loan to the tune of Rs.3,42,889/- as on 18/12/2013. The said vehicle was stolen away on 11/09/2011 from driver’s house during subsistence of the said policy. Thereafter complainant submitted his claim before the O.P.1 Insurance Company for settlement of his claim. But as O.P.2 failed to give necessary NOC,  his claim was not settled by O.P.1. Claim of O.P.2 is excessive and the complainant is unable to meet up such excessive demand of O.P.2

Hence, this case.

        Notice was issued against all 3 O.Ps.. All of them appeared but only O.P. 1 has resisted this case by filing a W/V. So case against O.Ps. 2 and 3 was heard ex-parte.

       The specific stand of the O.P.1 is that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case and as such this case is not maintainable. The claim of the complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation as per provision of Sec-24 A of C.P.Act 1986. Complainant is not a consumer  within the meaning of Sec 02(d) C.P.Act 1986. The dispute  in question involves serious complicated question of Law and Facts and accounts and those matters cannot be decided by summary procedure by this Forum and those matters can only be decided in a regular trial by a competent court by taking evidence.

The O.P.1 couldn’t settle the claim of the complainant due to his (complainant) failure to submit original consent letter, original NOC, TO form no. 29 and 30 and Discharge Voucher despite their repeated requests . Under this backdrop O.P.1 has prayed for dismissal of this case.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:-

1) Has the Forum Territorial jurisdiction to hear and to dispose this case as alleged?Is the case maintainable?

2) Is the claim of the complainant hopelessly barred by limitation as per provision of Sec 24 A of the C.P.Act 1986 as alleged?

3) Is the complainant a consumer as per provision of the C.P.Act 1986?

4) Are the O.Ps. guilty for deficiency in service as alleged?

5) Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs as prayer for?    

DECISION WITH REASONS

All points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

Seen and perused the petition of complaint, the W/V  filed by the O.P.1 (both are supported by affidavits) documents and written arguments filed by both the parties. Also perused the decisions/ case laws referred by the Ld. Lawyer of O.P.1 in his written argument and the decision case/laws referred by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant at the time of argument.

We have heard arguments of Ld. Lawyers of both sides in full.

 Now after due consideration of all these and the arguments of Ld. Lawyers of both sides, we find that admittedly the complainant insured his vehicle  having registration WB 73B/8506 which O.P.1 Insurance Company, which was valid from 19/10/2011 to 18/10/2011. Now we find from the documents filed by the complainant that the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen away by unknown miscreant in the night on 11/09/2011 from the house of his driver at Falakata within Dist.- Jalpaiguri and the complainant lodged complaint with Falakata P.S. on this incident which was registered as Falakata P.S. case no 259/11 dt.11/09/11 u/s 379 IPC and that case was ended in FRT on 24/05/2012 . From the documents filed by O.P.1 we find that the complainant informed about the incident of theft of his vehicle and submitted his claim to O.P.1 on 20/10/2011 and that the complainant has not yet supplied the vital documents to O.P.1 to settle his claim despite repeated requests by O.P.1. It is clear from the materials on record that although in paragraph 34 of the petition of complaint, the complainant has stated that the cause of action has been arisen on and from 25/12/2013 but actually the cause of action has arisen on and from 11/09/2011 at Falakata which is/was within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum . It appears from the documents filed by the complainant that the said policy was not taken by the complainant for any commercial purpose and that was taken to cover envisaged risk of indemnification of actual loss and not to generate profit. So we are not agree with the argument of the Ld. Lawyer for O.P. On the point of this Forum’s jurisdiction and on the point of ‘Consumer’. But as the cause of action arose on and from 11/09/2011, to file case, the complainant should have filed the case on or before 11/09/2013 as per provision of Sec24A of the C.P.Act 1986. But this case has been filed on 07/02/2014 i.e. after long expiry of limitation without any petition for condonation of delay of filing the case explaining the cause of delay. That apart it is clearly evident from the materials on record that O.P.1 couldn’t settle the claim of the complainant  for not submitting the documents required this date despite repeated requests of O.P.1 . We further find that the complainant’s claim against O.Ps. 2 and 3 is for settlement of accounts, rate of interest etc and these matters cannot be settled by this Forum in summary procedure and these matters can be finally settled by the competent Civil Court by taking evidence of both the parties. In this view of the matter we find sufficient reason to hold that although the complainant  is a consumer and this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to hear and dispose of this case but this case is hopelessly barred by limitation u/s 24A of the C.P.Act,1986 and as such this case is not maintainable. In such circumstances question of deficiency in service against O.Ps. 1 and 2 as alleged by the complainant does not and cannot arise and the complainant is not entitled to any relief in this case.

              All points are disposed of .

              In the result the case fails.

              Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

             that the case/ application is dismissed on contest against O.P.1 and ex-parte against O.Ps.2 and 3  but without cost.

              Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost forthwith as per provision of sec 5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules,1987.