Haryana

Karnal

CC/132/2023

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Subhash Kashyap

28 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 132 of 2023

                                                          Date of instt.27.02.2023

                                                          Date of Decision 28.02.2023

 

Manoj Kumar son of Shri Satpal, resident of Ramleela Ground, ward no.4, Indri, District Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Sector-12, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     The HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Corporate office: 6^th floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road Andheri (E) Mumbai 400059.

 

                                                                    …..Opposite Parties.

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

 

 Present: Shri Subhash Kashyap, counsel for the complainant.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant got insured Honda Accord Car bearing registration no.HR-03D-5055 with the OPs, vide insurance policy bearing no.12311200039292601000, valid from 27.01.2020 to 26.01.2013. The insured declared value of the vehicle in question is Rs.6,12,000/-.  The complainant is running the business under the name and style as Balaji Trading company at new Bazar, Indri. In the night of 27.11.2012, complainant parked his aforesaid car in front of his office in the night hours and went to sleep in the office which is situated on the first floor. In the morning hours the complainant woke up and came down from his office, the aforesaid car was not found at the place where complainant parked his car. Thereafter, complainant tried his best to search the car, but car was not found and same was stolen by some unknown person. Thereafter, complainant moved an application before the SHO Police Station Indri requesting thereby to get recover the aforesaid car, on the aforesaid application the police lodged the DDR no.23 dated 28.11.2012 and thereafter lodged the case FIR no.508 dated 28.11.2012 under section 379 of IPC. Thereafter, complainant approached the office of OPs several times and requested to pay the insured amount of the aforesaid vehicle but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. The car of the complainant has not been traced out till today and thereafter the police of Police Station Indri, submitted the untrace report before the Court of Ms. Diksha Dass Ranga, learned Additional Civil Kudge (SD), SDJM Indri which has been received by the complainant on 01.11.2021. After receiving the untrace report, complainant again approached the OPs and submitted all the required documents and requested to settle the claim but OPs did not settle the claim till today.  Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 15.12.2021 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             Arguments on the point of admissibility heard.

3.             As per version of the complainant, he got insured his Honda Accord car with the OP. On 27.11.2012, the said car was stolen. Complainant lodged the FIR no.508 dated 28.11.2012 under section 379 of IPC in this regard. Intimation regarding the said incident was also given to the OPs. After that complainant requested the OPs several times to pay the insured but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. The police of Police Station Indri, submitted the untrace report before the Court of Ms. Diksha Dass Ranga, learned Additional Civil Kudge (SD), SDJM Indri which has been received by the complainant on 01.11.2021. After receiving the untrace report, complainant again approached the OPs and submitted all the required documents and requested to settle the claim but OPs did not settle the claim till today.  

4.             Now the question arises for consideration before us is that whether the present complaint is well within period of limitation as prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or not?

5.             Limitation for filing a complaint has been described under Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is reproduced as under:-

1. The District Commission, 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 sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, 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 District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

6.             As per aforesaid Section of Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing a complaint is of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the present complaint, vehicle in question was stolen in the year 2012. Police submitted the untrace report on 03.01.2013 and complainant received the copy of untrace report in the year 2021. It is not possible that on submission of untrace report, same was not accepted by the concerned court till 2021. Only collecting the untrace report in the year 2021 and serving the legal notice on 15.12.2021, does not create the new cause of action for filing the present complaint. Hence the limitation of the filing of the present complaint starts in the year 2013. During the period from the year 2013 to 2021 there is no correspondence between the parties. Moreover, there is no separate application, on the file to condone the delay or has not made prayer for condonation in the prayer para of the complaint and no sufficient cause has been shown by the complainant for not filing the complaint within limitation period prescribed in Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The cause of action has arisen in the year 2013 but complainant has filed the present complaint in the year 2023 i.e. after the gap of more than ten years. Hence, as per the provision of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the present complaint is hopelessly time barred and the same is liable to be dismissed

7.             Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 28.02.2023

 

  President,       

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

                      (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)           

                          Member                           Member