Haryana

StateCommission

A/57/2020

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANDEEP AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

J.P. NAHAR

26 Feb 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.57 of 2020

Date of Institution:23.01.2020

Date of decision:26.02.2020

 

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No. 338 Scheme No. 34, Ext. Old Mugal (Karan Commercial Centre), Karnal.

Now through its authorized signatory, Sh. Sujeet Kumar Sahu, Assit. Manager Claims (Legal) Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Plot NO. 6, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005.

…Appellant.

Versus

 

1.      Sandeep S/o Shri Dariyav Singh, Resident of Village Tahla, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

2.      CIFCO-Haryana & HP Narnaul. Code No. 200993148746.

 

…Respondents.

 

CORAM:   Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. J.P. Nahar, counsel for the appellant.

                  

                                      O R D E R

 

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL, MEMBER:

 

          Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Opposite Party No. 1 against the order dated 09.09.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahendergarh at Narnaul (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint of the complainant was partly allowed and directed as under:-

“Resultantly, as a sequel discussion noted above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP No. 1-Insurance Company firstly to pay the insured value/IDV of the tractor in question i.e. Rs. 5,98,500/- (Five Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred only) alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, to the finance company i.e. M/s Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd, on behalf of complainant, subject to submit of subrogation and indemnity bond and forms No. 28, 29 and 30 by the complainant, in respect of tractor in question with the insurance company. Further, the finance company M/s Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. is also directed to refund of the excess amount, if any, to the complainant within 15 days after receiving the same from Insurance company. OP No. 1 Insurance Company is also directed to pay Rs. 2,200/- (Rs. Two Thousand Two Hundred only) as compensation as well as litigation expenses. The complaint qua OP No. 2 is hereby dismissed as complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No. 2.

 

2.                Brief facts of the case narrated in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a tractor, Farmtrac 45F3, Model 2017 bearing Registration No. HR-35P-6109 and got it insured with the opposite party No.1 through opposite No. 2 (Agent) valid from 29.11.2017 to 28.11.2018 with IDV of Rs. 5,98,500/- (Five Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred only). It was further alleged that on 26.05.2018, he parked his tractor in his plot, but in the morning he found the tractor was missing, upon which an FIR bearing No. 141 U/s 379 IPC was lodged with the Police Station, Sadar, Narnaul on 27.05.2018. At last, police filed untraced report on 29.07.2018 before the Hon’ble Court of ACJM, Narnaul. The complainant also informed the opposite party No.1-Insurance Company about the theft of tractor in question and lodged claim with opposite party No.1-Insurance Company and submitted all the required documents. Thereafter, the complainant has requested so many times to the opposite party-Insurance Company to pay the claim amount but no heed has been paid by the opposite party-Insurance Company. Thus, there was deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

3.                Complaint was resisted by the opposite party No.1 by filing of written version and opposite party No.2 (Agent) did not appear before learned District Forum and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.04.2019.

4.                Opposite party No.1 submitted that the vehicle in question was insured with opposite party No.1 and upon intimation from the complainant on 27.05.2018 they appointed an investigator was deputed by opposite party No.1 who observed that the claimant used tractor in question on hire and reward basis and while tractor was parked outside of the house, the tractor stolen by unknown person using the ignition key which was left at its tool box. Thus, it was found that the vehicle was got stolen due to gross negligence of the complainant and it was violation of condition No.5 of the policy and such insurance company rightly repudiated the claim of complainant. Thus, there was no negligence on the part of opposite party No.1.

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”        In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

          In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

10.             In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay for 102 days in filing the appeal is dismissed being without sufficient cause and reasonable justification. Moreover, if touched on merits, present case is also not good on merits. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed being time barred as well as on merits in limine.

11.              The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry period of appeal, if any.

 

26^th February, 2020            Manjula                                 Harnam Singh Thakur                                                      Member                                 Judicial Member                                                                 Addl. Bench                         Addl. Bench