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.45/2020

MR. RAJESH YADAV

SOLE PROPRIETOR OF “ASTHA HOME CARE”

A-93, HAUZ RANI, MALVIYA NAGAR,

NEW DELHI…..COMPLAINANT

Vs.

1. SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd.

C-30, COMMUNITY CENTRE, 1^ST FLOOR, JANAKPURI

NEW DELHI.

2. SHRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE Co. Ltd.

AT A-13, MOHAN COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL AREA

BADARPUR, NEW DELHI.…..RESPONDENT/OP

Date of Institution-05.03.2020

Date of Order- 28.09.2022

  O R D E R

RASHMI BANSAL– Member

The present complainant is filed against OPs for seeking clearance of his claim amount along with compensation for suffering mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation.

1. The ccomplainant is the sole proprietor of a Home Care. The complainant has purchased a vehicle, an ambulance, by paying booking amount of Rs.15,000/-  to dealer  and the remaining amount was financed from OP2 of Rs.4,35,000/-  with  the help of agent of the dealer. Complainant submitted that at the time of financing of the loan, the agent of the dealer had taken four blank cheques from complainant stating that it has been  taken for security purpose only. The complainant has taken an insurance policy dated 17.10.2014 from OP1 for above stated vehicle, valid till 16.10.2015 with IDV of Rs.5,51,000/-. The above stated vehicle met an accident on 26.11.2014 and the complainant immediately informed OP1 about the same. It is further submitted by the complainant that the documents demanded by the OP1 has been given to it but till date OP1 has not given his claim and nor has given any information about the status of the claim. The  complainant has further submitted that OP2 has also extended threat to complainant that the security cheques will be presented and they will extract money as per their will.

2. The complainant alleges deficiency in services on the part of OP1 in not clearing his genuine claim  and against OP2 for adopting legal as well as illegal means to extend threat to the complainant to get concocted and imaginary amount from him. Complainant  prays for  payment of  insured amount of Rs.5,51,000/-  along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days from the date of accident till date of passing of order and thereafter at the rate of 36% per annum from the date of order till its realization along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-  for causing physical, mental torture and cruelty upon complainant and for loss of time and energy and travelling expenses and  litigation cost of Rs.35,000/-  along with the direction to OP1 and OP2 to handover the blank cheques to the complainant.

3. Before perusing the documents on record, for deciding the matter on merit, the Commission is duty bound, as per mandate of Sec.  69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is a legislative command to the Consumer Commission to examine, on its own, whether the complaint filed is within limitation period of two years as prescribed thereunder from the date on which the cause of action has arisen?

4. The cause of action, in the present case has arisen on 26.11.2014, the date on which  the accident occurred and OP1 and OP2 were informed on the same day. The documents filed by the complainant shows that OP1, vide its letter dated 22.08.2015 has demanded some documents from complainant, however, complainant has not filed any document to show any communication between him and OPs. Complainant has also not produced on record any evidence to establish non- action or deficiency on the part of OP1 and OP2. The present complaint is filed by the  complainant in the year 2020, almost five years after the last communication with OP1  and is highly time barred being beyond the mandatory period of  2 years.

5. Complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay nor has acknowledged such delay in his complaint or stated any reason for delay, instead the complainant has attempted to create a new time line by sending email dated 18.01.2020 to OP and legal notice dated 27.01.2020 to OP, however, even thereto, the complainant has not mentioned any date except the specific date of accident dated 26.11.2014, so as to give any new cause of action. There is no document on record to show the communication between complainant and OP during 2015 to 18.01.2020.  It is settled law that limitation cannot be extended by sending notices or subsequent correspondence.

6. The Hon’ble State Commission in Gian Gupta vs DDA CC No. 155/2010 decided on 16.08.2021 “The expression, `shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the Complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality.”

7. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the case and the same is dismisses being highly time barred. The file be consigned to record room after providing a copy to the complainant in terms of the consumer protection act 2019. The order be uploaded on web site.

8. The order contains 4 pages and each bears my signature.