1. The complaint petition has been filed against the O.P. who illegally and arbitrarily repudiated Nagrik Suraksha claim of the complainant causing loss, damages and mental agony to the complainant.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant has taken the Nagrik Suraksha Personnel policy in the year 2009 from O.P Oriental Insurance Company Dumka branch for the period 12.02.09 to 11.02.10. On 17.02.09 when the complainant was coming home with his motorcycle he met with an accident with truck no 10B1905 and the complainant became badly injured. He also filed an FIR which was registered as Dumka Town PS Case no 14/2009 dt. 17.02.09 u/s 279, 337 and 338 IPC still pending in the court of CJM Dumka.
3. He got treatment longtime in Belona Nursing Home Diamond Harbour road, Kolkata and returning from hospital he applied for his insurance claim in the office of O.P. He visited many times to the office of the O.P. regarding his claim. It is further submitted on behalf of the complainant that his policy money of Nagrik Suraksha of Rs 20,000 and Rs 60,000 for his mental agony and harassment with 12% interest directed to be given by the O.P.
4. Apart from that he has also filed the petition u/s 5 of Limitation Act on 26.04.17 with prayer to condone the delay in filing the above petition. Later on, on 25.01.18 he has also filed the affidavit and verification of the complaint case.
5.  The O.P. Oriental Insurance Company appeared and filed his show cause on 26.08.17 stating therein that the case of the complainant is wholly misconceived, illegal and not tenable in law and the complainant has got no valid cause of action for the above case. It is further submitted that the case of the complainant is hopelessly barred by the law of Limitation as alleged accident took place on 17.02.09 and the complainant has filed the above case on 16.03.17 i.e; after the lapse of 8 years. As such the above case is hopelessly barred by law of Limitation as per section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is further submitted that the complainant lodged a claim of the alleged accident for the first time on 24.03.09 and therefore investigator Shree Raj Kumar Verma as deputed to make inquiry and submitted investigation report to the O.P. but in spite of several requests by the investigator the complainant failed to provide photocopy of R.C. Book of Motor Cycle bearing registration no. JH04A3528 and accordingly investigator submitted his report on 13.07.09 to this O.P.
6. It is admitted fact that the complainant took Nagrik Suraksha claim no. 332401/48/2009/1913 covering period from 23.10.08 to 22.10.09 for Rs 1,00,000 i.e; Rs 80,000 for death and Rs 20,000 for personal accident  from O.P. and the complainant claim Rs 20,000 as per policy of his personal injury. It is further submitted that O.P. in the respect of investigator report vide his letter dt. 06.08.09 requested the complainant to submit the following documents :-

1. Xerox copy of registration book of vehicle no. JH043528
2. Bill/Cash Memo/ Invoice of the medical treatment/ payment(Original)
3. Certified copy of FIR and final report duly accepted by CGMThe above letter has duly been accepted by the complainant himself on 06.08.19 which remain uncomplied by the complainant. It is further submitted that O.P. also issued reminders on 07.12.09, 09.02.10 and lastly on 31.03.10 requesting the complainant to furnish all the above documents enabling the O.P. to settle the claim but it is regretted that the complainant in spite of the same failed to furnish the documents as required by the O.P.
7. Considering the conduct of the complainant for not complying with the directions of the O.P. thus the O.P. lastly, vide his registered letter            dt. 31.03.10 by stating the reasons and closed the above claim treated as, “No Claim” of the complainant and informed him accordingly. As such in the light of above facts and circumstances it is evidently clear that there is no negligency and deficiency on the part of this O.P. and as on account of the failure to furnish the above documents the claim was closed as above. It is further submitted that in fact and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the complaint case of the complainant deserves to be rejected.                        
8. The main point for the determination in this case is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or reliefs as claimed !

                                        Findings

The complainant in support of his case filed oral and documentary evidence both. As oral witness he has filed the affidavit of following persons –

  CW1 – Nimai Chandra Rajak

  CW2 – Anuradha Kumari

And has also filed the following documentary evidences which are as follows –

1. Photocopy of Nagrik Suraksha invoice policy of Nimai Chandra Rajak

2.  Photocopy of certificate copy of FIR of Dumka Muffassil case no. 14/2009 dt. 17.12.09

3. Photocopy of certified of chargesheet of Dumka Muffassil case no. 14/2009 along with case diary

4. Three receipt issued by Belona Nursing Home and Diagnostic Centre, Diamond Harbour, Kolkata. Total 4 sheets.

9. The O.P. in support of his case has filed some documentary evidence which are as follows:-

Exhibit A - is the report of investigation by Raj Kumar Verma dt. 13.07.09. Total 3 sheets.

Exhibit B – is the Nagrik Suraksha insurance policy schedule of Nimai Chandra Rajak

Exhibit C – is the letter of O.P. dt. 06.08.09 to the complainantrequiring certain documents

Exhibit D – is also letter of O.P. Insurance Company dt. 07.12.09 to the complainant which he revised on 11.10.10

Two other letters dt. 09.02.10 and 31.03.10 was also given.

10. Heard the Learned Counsel of both the parties and also perused the entire case record and evidences oral and documentary adduced on behalf of both the parties and carefully going through the entire case record and submissions adduced on behalf of both the parties. From carefully scrutinizing and analyzing the entire documents and submission adduced the main point in this case is that case has been filed beyond the limitation period and the case is barred by law of Limitation.
11.  “As per section 69 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 the limitation period for the filing of any case is within 2 years from the date of which cause of action has arose.”
12. From going through the complaint petition it does not mention when the cause of action arose but apparently the accident took place on 17.02.09. It is apparent from FIR and charge sheet. But the complainant has filed this complaint case before this commission on 22.03.17. Apparently this case has been filed by the complainant after the lapse of near about 8 years. The complainant has filed the above u/s 5 of Limitation Act but going through this petition the delay has not been explained satisfactorily and not a single cheat of paper has been filed regarding the demand of the complainant and for what period he was admitted or confined totally on the bed. As such the petition u/s 5 has not satisfactorily explained the delay.
13.  From perusal of Exhibit D which is letter of Insurance Company O.P. to the complainant regarding filing of some documents and that is this letter of the dt. 07.12.19 and the complainant                             Nimai Chandra Rajak received this letter on 11.01.10. It clearly shows that the complainant has fully knowledge about the occurrence and has claim and lastly the O.P. Company of his letter dt. 31.03.10 has informed the complainant that his claim was treated as no claim and the claim was closed.
14.  Apparently O.P. has clear knowledge that is claim was closed by the O.P. on 31.03.10 and in spite of that he filed this complaint case on 22.03.17 that is after lapse of 7 years and there is no reasonable and satisfied explanation given by the complainant in this regard.
15.  Apart from that the complainant has not corroborated the O.P. in settling the claim neither he filed RC Book of the Motor cycle and nor he filed his discharge certificate and cash memo and medical prescriptions here in this case. He has also not filed above documents which show that he got medical treatment in the hospital.
16. From the aforesaid discussion we come to the conclusion that the complainant case is totally time barred which was not satisfactory explained by reasonable ground and cause and the complainant has not filed a single cheat of paper which proves that he was treated and discharged from the hospital. I do not find the O.P. negligent in providing services to the complainant and there is no deficiency and negligency on the part of the O.P. and the O.P. has rightly closed the claim of the complainant.

It is therefore, we

                                    Ordered

That this case and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

Let a copy of this order be served to both the parties free of cost.

Let this document be deposited in the record room and also to be shown on the website of the commission.