PER:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant got financed vehicle R.C No. PB05-L-5765 Ashok Leyland 2214COWL from opposite party No. 2 and they got the said vehicle insured from opposite party No. 1 which is their sister concern, on payment of premium received from the complainant and policy No. 10003/31/15/425938 with validity of one year from 25.11.2014 to 24.11.2015 was issued for the said vehicle. The said vehicle was caught fire in area of G.T. Road Kharori Patra near bypass Bhakhra Pul bypass in month of December 2014, report of which was lodged vide DDR No. 13 dated 26.12.2014 with police station Shutrana District Patiala. The said vehicle was driven by Harnek Singh son of Jagtar Singh driver of the said vehicle who has valid driving license No. PB-0:20040201852 issued by DTO Office Amritsar and valid national permit for goods carriage Permit No. 10499/PB-08/NP/2013. As the insurance of the said vehicle was obtained by opposite party No. 2 from their sister concern opposite party No. 1, so the complainant has made his report of above fire accident of the vehicle to opposite party No. 2 and also submitted all the relevant documents DDR etc. as required by the opposite party No. 2 for further lodging claim with opposite party No. 1 for payment of insurance claim but till date the insurance claim of the complainant is not sanctioned and paid by the opposite parties inspite of his repeated requests and personal visits to their office. The complainant has suffered a financial loss on account of non settlement of claim of the complainant and his loan account is still standing and opposite parties are charging interest on it and he could not pay electricity bills to the department of his electricity connection. Before filing the present complaint the complainant also served a legal notice dated 9.8.2017 through is counsel but the opposite parties have not complied the same, hence necessity has arisen to file the present complaint. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay insurance claim of Rs. 6,80,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% p. a. for delayed period, also pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental tension, agony to the complainant. Cost of the complaint may also be awarded in favour of the complainant in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party  No. 1 appeared through counsel and has filed the written version by taking preliminary objections that present complaint is hopelessly time barred. In this case the alleged accident occurred on 26.12.2014. Intimation of the claim was lodged with the opposite party No. 1 on 18.2.2015 and vide letter dated 27.3.2015 the claim was repudiated and due intimation of the same was given to the complainant and present complaint has been filed on 25.9.2017 after two years, therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being time barred. The complainant has concealed the material facts from this commission, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. In this case intimation of accident was given on 18.2.2015 and spot inspection was got conducted by the opposite party from the independent surveyor Tejinder Singh Anad, who given its report dated 19.2.2015 of the spot survey stating the following facts.

(i)      Neither insured nor any representative was present at site even after vising time and date.

(ii)     The vehicle was lying in unattended condition.

(iii)    The tyres of vehicle were in torn position even before alleged fire broke out.

(iv)    Surrounding people told that the vehicle was lying there for more than two months and vehicle was brought there in burnt condition.

(v)     Chassis Number was punched to the vehicle in self style, no original punch by the maker found on chassis.

(vi)    No document of the vehicle was available there.

(vii)   No engine Number was visible.

(viii)  No proper ID mark was found on the truck, even no number of the vehicle was mentioned on body of the truck on any side.

(ix)    Only registered number was available on the back side of the vehicle.

(x)     No propeller shaft was fitted.

(xi)    As discussed over phone, insured told that even he did not know about the loss occurred to the vehicle, that is not possible, if the driver did not inform the insured regarding the loss, it amounts that the vehicle was taken away by the driver without informing the insured.

(xii)   Keeping in view the above mentioned facts, the spot surveyor recommended for through investigation from independent agency.

From the facts mentioned above, it is quite clear that a false claim was lodged by the complainant with an intention to grab the amount claimed, whereas, no alleged occurrence took place and the complainant tried to get the false claim. On the basis of surveyor report, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 27.3.2015 on the grounds mentioned herein, which was duly sent to the complainant vide registered post. The alleged occurrence took place on 26.12.2014 whereas the replying opposite party was informed on 18.2.2015 after a gap of approximately two months, therefore, the complainant has breached the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, not entitled for any claim.  The present complaint is legally not maintainable. The complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint as the complaint has been filed without any cause of action qua the opposite party No. 1. On merits, it was pleaded that the vehicle was insured by the opposite party No. 1. The intimation of alleged occurrence was given to the opposite party No. 1 on 18.2.2015 and independent surveyor was appointed. From the facts it is quite clear that no alleged occurrence took place and the complainant tried to manipulate the facts just to take the compensation. On the basis of survey report, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 27.3.2015 which was sent to the complainant through registered post. So far as the DDR is concerned, it is submitted that a false DDR has been got registered by the complainant with the connivance of police officials. So far as the driver of the vehicle is concerned, it is submitted that the complainant did not provide any document to the opposite party No. 1 regarding the driver. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was required to submit the claim to opposite party No. 1, but in this case, as admitted by the complainant no intimation as given by it to the opposite party no. 1 and claim was lodged by the complainant on 18.2.2015 and same was repudiated vide letter dated 27.3.2015, due intimation as given through registered post. The complainant himself negligent and he has breached the terms and conditions of the policy. The claim of the complainant is time barred, false vague and bogus one, as false claim was lodged by the complainant with an intention to grab the amount claimed. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4        Notice was issued to the Opposite party No.2 but the opposite party No. 2 did not appear in this case inspite of due service, therefore, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte.

5        To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents i.e. copy of RC Ex. C-1, copy of driving license Ex. C-2, copy of the National permit Ex. C-3, copy of aadhar Card Ex. C-4, copy of PAN Card Ex. C-5, Copy of electricity bill Ex. C-6, copy of the statement of account Ex. C-7, copy of policy schedule Ex. C-8, copy of the D.D.R. Ex. C-9, copy of the legal notice Ex. C-9A, postal receipts Ex. C-10, C-11, copy of balance sheet Ex. C-12, copy of the acknowledgement Ex. C-13 and closed the evidence.  Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Shisleshvinder, Asstt. Manager Ex. OP1/1, copy of policy Ex. OP1/2, copy of terms and conditions Ex. OP1/3, copy of the spot survey dated 19.2.2015 Ex. OP1/4, copy of letter dated 23.2.2015 Ex. OP1/5, copy of postal receipt Ex. OP1/6 and closure letter Ex. OP1/7, copy of the postal receipt Ex. OP1/8, affidavit of Tejinder Singh Anand Surveyor & Loss Assessor Ex. OP1/9, claim intimation slip Ex. OP1/10 copy of IDRA list of claim Ex. OP1/11 and closed the evidence.  

6        We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the complainant and opposite party No.1 and have carefully gone through the record. 

7        In the present case, the opposite party No. 1 has taken objection that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred. The accident occurred on 26.12.2014. Intimation of the claim was lodged with the opposite party No. 1 on 18.2.2015 and vide letter dated 27.3.2015 the claim was repudiated and due intimation of the same was given to the complainant and present complaint has been filed on 25.9.2017 after the gap of two years, therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being time barred. To prove its version, the opposite party No. 1 has placed on record closure letter Ex. OP/7 which is dated 27.3.2015 and postal receipt of the same is Ex. OP1/8. In this way, it is duly proved on record that the claim has been repudiated by the opposite party No. 1 on 27.3.2015 and it is duly served upon the complainant vide receipt Ex. OP1/8.

8        Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, deals with limitation. It reads as under:-

“24A. Limitation period. – (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 sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in subsection (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 or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

9        The provisions of Section 24A of the C.P. Act were interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme in the judgment reported as “State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I)” 2009 CTJ 481 (Supreme Court) (CP) in which it has been observed as under:-

“8.     It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. 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 the complaint 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 and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

10.     This view of law was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as “V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) v. Anita Sena Fernandes” 2011 CTJ 1 (SUPREME COURT) (CP). It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- “

Section 24A(1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words, the consumer forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under Section 24A(1). If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2), the consumer forums will have no option but to dismiss the same. Reference in this connection can usefully be made to the recent judgments in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), 2009 CTJ 481 (SC)(CP)=(2009) 5 SCC 121 and Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Company v. National Insurance Company and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (SC)(CP)=(2009) 7 SCC 768.”

11      So far as the averments of the complaint that the complainant sent legal notice dated 9.8.2017, Ex.C-9A, is concerned, it is now well settled that the sending of such notice does not extend the period of limitation for filing the complaint. In this context reference can be made to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as ‘Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another” 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP)’ wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:-

“By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Insurance Company’s reply dated 21st March, 1996 to the legal notice dated 4th January, 1996, declining to issue the forms for preferring a claim after a lapse of more than four years of the date of fire, resulted in extending the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 24A of the Act. We have no hesitation in holding that the complaint filed on 24th October, 1997 and that too without an application for condonation of delay was manifestly barred by limitation and the Commission was justified in dismissing it on that short ground.”

12      In the present case the cause of action, if any, had accrued to the complainant on 27.3.2015 and the complaint should have been filed within two years from that date i.e. upto 26.3.2017. However, the complainant has filed this complaint only on 25.9.2017 and that too without filing any application for condonation of delay explaining cause for such delay. It appears that the complainant has suddenly woken up and has filed this complaint without any justified reasons and even without filing application for condonation of delay explaining cause for such delay. It is, therefore, held that certainly this complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation of two years as provided in Section 24-A of the C.P. Act.

13      In view of the ratio of the law laid down in the above noted authorities and the discussion held above, we do not find any ground to admit this complaint to be heard on merits and the same is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation.  Copy of order will be supplied by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar to the parties as per rules. File be sent back to the District consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

14.07.2022