BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.129 of 2013
Date of Instt. 8.03.2013
Date of decision: 25.02.2015
Ved Pal son of Shri Ram Chander r/o village Didwari tehsil Samalkha Disitrict Panipat.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Grand House, GT Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.
.
…..Opposite Party
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.
Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma ……Member.
Argued by:- Sh.B.S.Jaglan Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Narender Chaudhary Advocate for the OP.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in services on the allegations that he purchased a Jeep Mahindra Scorpio from P.P.Automotive Karnal vide challan No.58 dated 27.2.2006 bearing Temporary registration No. HR 61HQTP/4902, chassis No. 62B66472 Engine No. 64B16973 for a total consideration of Rs.7,18,000/ and got the same insured from the OP vide insurance policy No.353601/31/05/81/00006335 valid from 27.2.2006 to 26.2.2007. It has been further alleged that on 12.3.2006 complainant alongwith his friend Sonu and his family went to Haridwar and the said vehicle was stolen from there during the night of 12.3.2006 by some unknown person and FIR No.244 dated 13.3.2006 u/s 379 IPC was registered with P.S.Kotwali Nagar, Haridwar. The complainant informed the OP and lodged the claim in respect of his vehicle with the OP and also submitted the required documents but the claim of the complainant has not been paid which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP and has prayed that the OP be directed to pay the claim amount alongwith compensation for the harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the contents of the complaint, copy of the Certificate of Insurance Ex.C1, copy of FIR Ex.C2, Application dated 25.4.2006 to the OP.Ex.C3, Insurance policy Ex.C4 and copy of the bill Ex.C5.
2. On notice the OP appeared and filed its written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complaint was time barred.
On merits, theft of the vehicle in question has not been denied. It was contended that on intimation of theft of the vehicle, the matter was got investigated through Royal Associates who in their report dated 27.9.2006 observed that the vehicle was not registered with the registration authority till the date of theft. One key of the vehicle was present with financer whereas the second key was taken away by the thieves by stealing the same from the pocket of the insured as stated by the complainant. The claim was repudiated as the same was not payable as the vehicle was being used as taxi against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and dismissal of the complaint was sought.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. From the perusal of the case file, it transpires that the complainant approached the District Consumer Forum, Panipat, who accepted the complaint filed by the complainant vide order dated 29.03.2011 and directed the OP to reimburse the claim to the complainant.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.3.2011 passed by the Learned District Consumer Forum, Panipat, the OP-Insurer preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon,ble State Commission vide order dated 11.10.2012 set aside the order dated 29.3.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Panipat and passed the following orders:
“Accordingly, this appeal is accepted and impugned order is set aside. Consequently, complaint of the complainant is ordered to be returned. However, respondent/complainant is at liberty to approach the District Forum having the proper territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint for the Redressal of his grievances on the same cause of action within 60 days from today.”
6. Thereafter, the complainant filed the present complaint before this Forum on 8.3.2013 i.e. after the expiry of 60 days w.e.f. 11.10.2012 as directed by the Hon,ble State Commission.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that delay in filing the complaint was liable to be condoned in view of the law laid down in cases Dinesh Kumar Versus Chanderkala and another 2011(4) Latest Judicial Reports 852, National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Nitin Khandelwal 2008(3) Latest Judicial Reports 281 and Poonam and others Versus Harish Kumar and another 2012(3) Latest Judicial Reports 440.
8. However, there is no dispute regarding law laid down in the above referred authorities but the said authorities are not applicable in the present circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the Hon,ble State Commission has issued specific directions to the complainant to file the complaint before the Appropriate Forum within 60 days w.e.f. the said order dated 11.10.2012 but the present complaint has been filed on 8.3.2013 after the expiry of about 145 days. Therefore, relaxation in the directions issued by the Hon,ble State Commission is beyond the purview of the District Forum and as such District Forum has got no power to extend the period in filing the complaint in contravention of the directions of sixty days given by the Hon,ble State Commission.
9. Therefore, since the complaint has been filed after the stipulated period of sixty days as directed by the Hon, ble State Commission and as such the same is hereby dismissed as barred by limitation. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 25.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Argued by:- Sh.B.S.Jaglan Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Narender Chaudhary Advocate for the OP.
Arguments heard. To come up for orders and supply of more books if any on the point of condonation of delay on 25.2.2015.
Announced
dated: 24.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Argued by:- Sh.B.S.Jaglan Avocate for the comloainant.
Sh.Narender Chaudhary Advocate for the OP.
Today books on the point of condonation of delay not supplied. Since arguments has been concluded, therefore, to come up for orders after lunch.
Announced
dated: 25.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Argued by:- Sh.B.S.Jaglan Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Narender Chaudhary Advocate for the OP.
Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 25.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member
