Haryana

Karnal

CC/90/2020

Manjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar Kundu

27 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 90 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt. 11.02.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 27.02.2020

 

Manjit Kaur widow of Shri Halkar Singh resident of village Kheri Saraf Ali, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal.

                                                                       …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Mahila Ashram Complex, Behind Old Bus Stand, Karnal, through its authorized signatory/Branch Manager.

                                                                        …..Opposite party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Anil Kumar Advocate for complainant.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                The fact of the complaint is that present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that Balkar Singh husband of the complainant in his lifetime got insured his Honda motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-40F-3320, vide policy no.798231, valid from 07.07.2016 to 06.07.2017. As per terms and conditions of the policy if the driver of the said insured vehicle met with an accident, the insurance company would be liable to pay the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. On 03.09.2017 the husband of the complainant met with an accident with unknown vehicle. An unknown person took the husband of the complainant at Minakshi Hospital, where the concerned doctor found serious injuries on his vital parts, referred him to Karnal Hospital, but he was admitted in Virender Hospital at Karnal, where he was admitted in I.C.U. On information, A.S.I. Chain Singh Police Station Rajound, District Kaithal informed to the hospital authority that accident in question has occurred near village Kheri Saraf Ali and on his request, the concerned doctor advised him that the injured is not fit for statement, where the eye witness was also not present. The foresaid inquiry officer visited to the hospital on 05,06,07,08,09.09.2017, but the concerned doctor opined that the injured Balkar Singh is not fit for statement and consequentially on 26.11.2017, injured Balkar Singh died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. Qua the said accident an FIR no.617 dated 30.09.2017 under section 279,337,339 and 304 of IPC got registered with Police Station Assandh. Thereafter, complainant approached to the OP and requested to disburse the claim amount and on the demand of the official of the OP, the complainant submitted all the concerned documents with vested benefit in time before the official of the OP, and thereafter inspite of the repeated requests of the complainant, the OP badly failed to pay the compensation as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant being wife of deceased Balkar Singh, is entitled for the compensation of the death of his husband, but the officials of the OP badly failed to pay the same. Complainant visited the office of the OP so many times and requested to pay the claim amount but OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant have gone through the facts mentioned in the complaint.

3.             The husband of the complainant met with an accident on 03.09.2017. The FIR in this regard was got lodged on 30.09.2017. The husband of complainant died on 26.11.2017, so the cause of action accrued on 26.11.2017 but the present complaint was filed on 11.02.2020 after about 2½ years of accrual of cause of action. No application for condonation of delay is filed by the complainant and no sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the complaint within limitation. As per section 24A of Consumer Protection Act “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.” Hence as per the provision of law the present complaint is time barred. Hence, the same is not maintainable.

4.             In view of above discussion, the present complaint is not maintainable being time barred, hence the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. The party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:27.02.2020                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes                                                            Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member