Order No. -19                                                                                  Dt.-08/01/2016

Shri Asoke Kumar Das,President

F  I  N  A  L   O  R  D  E  R

Complainant’s case in short is that he is the owner of one Mahindra MAXX2WD vehicle having registration number WB73A5855 and that vehicle was insured with Bajaj Allianz which was valid from 13/02/2008 to 12/12/2009. On 20/03/2009 the driver of that vehicle namely Binod Lohar went to Goursingh Jot (Basti) under P.S.-Kharibari, Dist.- Darjeeling with that vehicle but he didn’t return back. On 21/03/2009 the complainant lodged a missing diary regarding the said vehicle and its driver. On 22/03/2009 the dead body of the driver was handed over to his brother Binoy Lohar from the Marg of Bahadurpur hospital, Nepal. On 23/02/2009 the complainant again lodged a complaint with Rajganj P.S. alleging murder of Binod Lohar and theft of his said vehicle and that complaint was registered as Rajganj P.S. Case no.53/09 dt.23/03/2009 u/s 364/379 I.P.C which was ended in Rajganj P.S. charge sheet no.351/2013 dt. 31^st Dec.2013 u/s 364/379/302/201/34IPC. The complainant reported the entire matter to Bajaj Allianz  General Insurance Co.Ltd. Siliguri Branch. The Insurance Company enquired into the matter from P.S. Thereafter the complainant submitted his cliam to the Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz  General Insurance Co.Ltd. Siliguri Branch but the Insurance Company neither repudiated his claim nor settled his claim. On 19/11/2014 he sent legal notice  to Bajaj Allianz  General Insurance Co.Ltd.(O.P.1) for settlement of his claim but the Insurance Company kept silent.  Hence this case.

The O.P. Bajaj Allianz  General Insurance Co.Ltd.has resisted  this case by filing a W/V denying and disputing the claim and contention of the complainant with prayer for dismissal of this case.

Their specific stand is that the case is hopelessly barred by limitation and that the complainant has filed this case suppressing material facts with a view of unlawful gain.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Is the case maintainable?
2. Is the case barred by limitation as per provision of sec 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act?
3. Are the OPs guilty for deficiency in service as alleged?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

All points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

After going through and due consideration of the materials on record namely the pleading of the parties, documents and written arguments filed by the parties and oral arguments of the Ld. Lawyer for the O.P.we find that the vehicle in question was insured with the O.P. Insurance company and that was valid from 13/02/2008  to 12/12/2009 and that the incident of alleged theft of the vehicle in question took place on 20/03/2009 and that the complainant lodged missing diary on 21/03/2009 and he also lodged a complaint with Rajganj P.S. on 23/03/2009 over theft of his vehicle and murder of its driver. Now from the copy of letter dt.31/07/2009 filed by O.P. we find that the complainant submitted his claim alleging theft of his vehicle to O.P. on 14/04/2009, 07/05/2009 and 15/07/2009 and the O.P. was compelled to repudiate such claim of the complainant due to non-cooperation of the complainant. This fact is not mentioned anywhere in the petition of complaint. Rather the complainant suppressed that fact. He has stated in paragraphs 8 and 9 of his petition of complaint that after submission of charge sheet on 12/10/2014 in Rajganj P.S. Case number 53 of 2009 dt. 23/03/2009 he submitted his claim to O.P. and sent legal notice to O.P. to settle his claim. In our considered opinion the complainant did this deliberately for unlawful gain. Therefore the contention of the O.P. that the complainant has filed this case suppressing material fact is well proved. Now it is clear from O.P’s letter dt.31/07/2009 that the O.P. has repudiated the claim of the complainant on 31/07/2009. Therefore the complainant should have file this case within 2 years from 31/07/2009 i.e. on or before 31/07/2011 as per provision of Sec 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act but the complainant has filed the instant case on 09/02/2015 i.e. after lapse of almost 4 years of the period of limitation. There is no explaination regarding the cause of such inordinate delay of filing this case/petition of complaint . Therefore we have no hessitation to hold that this case is hopelessly barred by limitation as per provision of Sec 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act and as such the case is not maintainable and accordingly the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and the case is liable to be dismissed.

All points are disposed off accordingly.

1. .

Hence, it is           

O R D E R E D

        That the case /application is dismissed on contest being not maintainable and in the circumstances we make no order as to cost.

         Let copy of this final order be supplied free of cost forthwith to the parties/ their Ld. Advocates/agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post, in terms of Rule 5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules 1987.