Delhi

North West

CC/165/2024

RAJA RAM SHASTRI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AKHILESH KUMAR PANDEY

27 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION-V, NORTH-WEST GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/165/2024
( Date of Filing : 05 Mar 2024 )
 
1. RAJA RAM SHASTRI
S/O SH.RAM BALAK SHASTRI R/O A-1/213,SEC-6,ROHINI,DELHI
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
21,PATULLOS ROAD,CHENNAI-600002 ALSO AT-822,DEVIKA TOWER,8TH FLOOR,6 NEHRU PLACE,DELHI
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  NIPUR CHANDNA PRESIDING MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 27 Mar 2024
Final Order / Judgement

ORDER

27.03.2024

 

Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

  1. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant is the owner of the vehicle duly insured with OP Ins. Co. vide policy bearing no. MOQ1195127 w.e.f. 28.03.2018 to 27.03.2019.

 

  1. On 18.12.2018, vehicle in question met with an accident and got completely damaged. The complainant came to know about the accident through police official of Okhla and FIR  in respect to the accident was also lodged at P.S Okhla. The complainant duly informed about the accident to OP Ins. Co. and after continuous persuation the executive of OP Ins. Co. inspected the vehicle after one month of the accident.

 

  1. It is alleged by the complainant that he got the vehicle repaired from Rana Motors and incurred the expenses to the tune of Rs. 3 Lakh. Complainant lodged the claim with OP but OP arbitrarily rejected the same in the flimsy ground vide letter dated 29.03.2019.

 

  1. It is further alleged by the complainant that thereafter COVID-19 pandemic national lockdown was imposed which remained in operation in the year 2021. In the month of February, 2021 and thereafter on various occasions complainant approached OP Ins. Co. for reconsideration of his claim but all in vain. Being aggrieved by the conduct of OP complainant  approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.

 

  1. The present complaint case is at admission stage. We have heard arguments advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for complainant. Sh. Budh Priya Gautam and have perused the record.

 

  1. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for complainant that since the complainant is in continuous follow up with OP Ins. Co. in respect to the claim in question the cause of action for filing the present complaint is continuing and present complaint is well within limitation.

 

  1. Before adverting to the disposal of the present complaint case let us peruse the relevant provision in respect of limitation provided under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

As per section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019: -

  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 subsection (1). A complaint may be entertained after the period 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, as the case may be records its reason form condoning such delay.

 

  1. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the complaint should be preferred within a period of two years of the accrual of cause of action.

 

  1. Admittedly, the complainant has insured the vehicle in question with OP Ins. Co. for the period from 28.03.2018 to 27.03.2019. On 18.12.2018, the vehicle in question met with an accident and as such the FIR was registered at P.S Okhla, Delhi. The OP Ins. Co. vide its letter dated 29.03.2019 repudiated the claim of the complainant. The substantive cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 29.03.2019 i.e. the date of repudiation of claim. Complainant ought to have file the present complaint within 2 years of the accrual of cause of action i.e. March, 2021. The complainant approached this Commission and filed the present complaint on 05.03.2024 i.e. after 2 years of the accrual of the substantive cause of action for filing the present complaint. The complainant ought to have file the present complaint within two years of the accrual of cause of action but the complainant failed to do so.

 

  1. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that substantive cause of action for filing the present complaint arose  on 29.03.2019 i.e. the date of repudiation of claim, the complainant ought to have file the present complaint within two year of the accrual of cause of action. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 05.03.2024 i.e. after 2 years, the present complaint is therefore barred by limitation, hence, dismissed.

 

  1. File be consigned to record room.

 

  1. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  27.03.2024.

 

 

SANJAY KUMAR                         NIPUR CHANDNA           RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                        MEMBER        

 
 
[ NIPUR CHANDNA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.