Delhi

North West

CC/95/2024

AJAY SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

HIMANSHU MATHUR SHUBHAM AGGARWAL

26 Feb 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/95/2024
( Date of Filing : 02 Feb 2024 )
 
1. AJAY SHARMA
R/O H.NO.E-4/19,GROUND FLOOR,ROHINI SEC-11,NEAR G3S MALL,DELHI-110085
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
OFFICE NO.301-308,3RD FLOOR,AGGARWAL PRESTIGE MALL,PLOT NO.2,ROAD NO.44,NEAR M2K CINEMA,RANI BAGH,PITAMPURA,DELHI-110034
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 26 Feb 2024
Final Order / Judgement

MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

ORDER

26.02.2024

1.       A complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that complainant was the owner of the vehicle bearing Registria No. DL6CS2779 duly insured with OP Ins. Co. vide policy bearing no. 3100644853 w.e.f. 15.10.2020 to 14.10.2021.

2.       On 24.03.2021, the vehicle in question got stolen from the parking of the complainant and the FIR bearing no. 009176 was registered on 25.03.2021. On 30.03.2021 the officials of the OP collected the documents for processing the claim in question. It is further alleged that on various occasions complainant approached OP for getting the status of his claim but all in vain. On 18.03.2022 complainant received a letter dated 17.07.2021 vide which his claim has been repudiated by OP Ins. Co. Being aggrieved by the repudiation complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.

3.       We have heard the argument of Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Shubham Aggarwal regarding the admissibility of the complaint as well as on the issue of limitation.

4.       Admittedly, complainant approached this Commission and filed the present complaint on 02.02.2024. Admittedly, the cause of action for filing the present complaint firstly arose on 24.03.2021 when the vehicle in question got stolen from the parking of the complainant. Secondly and substantive cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 17.07.2021 when the OP Ins. Co. repudiated the claim of the complainant. It is submitted by the complainant that on 18.03.2022 he received the repudiation letter dated 17.07.2021. Despite bare version no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the complainant in respect to the receipt of repudiation letter dated 17.07.2021 on 18.03.2022. We failed to understand that why the complainant had not carried out any correspondence in respect to the claim in question from the date of theft i.e. 24.03.2021 to 18.03.2022. The complainant has averred in his complaint that he approached OP on various occasions with the requisite documents but has failed to place on record any documentary proof in respect to the same. Hence, in our opinion the substantive cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 17.07.2021.

5.       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 Comission , 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.

8.     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.

9.     On perusal of record before us, we found that the cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 17.07.2021. 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.

10.   In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that substantive cause of action for filing the present complaint arose 17.07.2021, 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 02.02.2024 i.e after the delay of 2 years and 6 months, the present complaint is therefore barred by limitation, hence, dismissed. File be consigned to record room.

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 the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   26.02.2024.

 

 

Sanjay Kumar            Nipur Chandna                      Rajesh

               President                            Member                         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.