CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/176/18

          Date of Institution:-    27.04.2018

          Order Reserved on:- 28.05.2024

                  Date of Decision:-      05.06.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Subhash

S/o Sh. Mahendra
R/o H. No.G-74,

Harkesh Nagar, Okhla,

Phase-2, New Delhi

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Managing Director,

Chairman/Director

Plot No.C-001, Unit Nos. 810-816,

8^th Floor, World Trade Tower,

Sector-16, Noida - 201301

.…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thathe has purchased a motor cycle bearing registration no.DL3SCS1142 duly insured with OP vide policy number 0181724171/000000/00. On 05.05.2014, the motorcycle was parked in front of his house which was found stolen in the morning. FIR no.318/14 under section 379IPC PS, OIA, New Delhi was lodged. The motorcycle was not traced out so untraced report dated 25.09.2014 was filed which was accepted by the concerned court. He has brought the matter to the notice of the OP thereafter and requested to pay the insured amount but OP has not given the claim so there is deficiency on the part of the OP. Hence, this complaint.

2. The complainant has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint on the grounds that he is an illiterate person. OP has not settled the claim on one pretext or other. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to above stated reason.

3. The OP has filed the written statement with the averments that policy in question was valid from 01.08.2013-31.07.2014 and IDV value of the motorcycle was Rs.45268/-. On 05.05.2014, motorcycle was stolen but OP only came to know 28.08.2018 on the receipt of copy of the complaint from this Forum. The intimation qua the theft was not given to the OP. There is violation of the condition number 1 read with condition number eight of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complaint has been filed after four years from the date of theft so it is barred by limitation. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.

4. The complainant has filed the rejoinderwherein he has denied the averments of written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.

5. The parties were directed the lead the evidence.

6. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents annexed with the complaint i.e. insurance policy, invoice of the vehicle, vehicle inquiry report, FIR, copy of the order sheet dated 25.09.2014 and copy of the request letter dated 22.01.2018. Ex.CW1/1 to 5 and mark ‘X’.

7. The OP has filed the affidavit of Sh. RohitUdaiwal, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents i.e. terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.OW1/1.

8. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the OP as no one has turned up for complainant to address the arguments despite the fact that time was given to address the arguments.

9. The OP has raised the issue of limitation in the WS. The perusal of the material on record shows that during the intervening night of 05.05.2014 and 06.05.2014 the theft of motorcycle in question has taken place from outside the house of complainant qua which FIR no.318/14 PS OIA, New Delhi was lodged and Policeafter investigation has filed the untrace report which was accepted by the court vide order dated 25.09.2014 which is Ex.CW1/D.

10. The cause of action firstly arose on 06.05.2014. The complainant did not inform the OP about the theft of the motorcycle. The complainant has placed on record the request letter dated 22.01.2018 (shown as Ex.CW1/5) in the affidavit. This letter shows that complainant has visited the office of OP number of times after the acceptance of the untrace report by the court concerned but OP has not cleared the claim.

11. There is nothing on the record that complainant has given in writing to the OP about the theft of the motorcycle in question. It is not discernable from the letter dated 22.01.2018 that OP after receipt of written letter for claim has repudiated the claim. Complainant has failed to explain why he has not lodged the claim with OP. The complaint has been filed on 13.04.2018 by the complainant that is near about after the four years from the date of the theft of the motorcycle in question. There is nothing in the application for condonation of delay about the reasons for delay in filing the complaint. The delay in filing the complaint must be properly explained but application is without any reason for delay in filing the complaint. The application should have been decided at the very outset on the receipt of the complaint which was not done by my Ld. Predecessor.

12. There is no merit in the application for the condonation of delay and accordingly the application to condone the delay is dismissed.

13. The compliant is barred by limitation so complaint in dismissed.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 05.06.2024.