Haryana

Panchkula

CC/25/2020

VIKRAM. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

HAMID HUSSAN & MOIN HUSSAN.

03 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	25 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	13.01.2020
Date of Decision	:	03.02.2020

                                                                                          

Vikram son of Shri Pyare Lal, resident of House No.156, Near Mandir, Kot, Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Regional Manager A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Chopra Tower, 2^nd Floor, Above Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ambala Chandigarh Road, Derabassi, Punjab through its Branch Manager.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office SCO NO.325, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9, Panchkula.

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                  Mr.Satpal, President.

                             Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                             Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:      Complainant in person along with Mr. Moin Hussain, Advocate.

                              

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.                    Today the case is fixed for consideration on the admissibility of the complaint. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Hero Splendor Motor Cycle bearing registration No. HR-03-R-6774 owned by the complainant, which was duly insured with Ops vide Insurance Policy No. 231303/31/2017/13931 w.e.f. 14.09.2016 to midnight of 13.09.2017, was got damaged/burnt in the riots, which occurred after the conviction of Baba Ram Rahim. The complainant had duly lodged an F.I.R. dated 01.09.2017 under Section 148, 149, 427, 431 and 435 of IPC with Police Station Sector-5 Panchkula. It is further alleged that the complainant has visited the office of Ops several times for the release of the assured sum but till date no action has been taken by the Ops thereby compelling the complainant to send the legal notice through his counsel on 22.11.2019 asking the Ops to release the assured sum to him. It is also alleged that the complainant is  a poor person and working as a sweeper in the office of Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation at Hartron Bhawan Bays No.73-76, Sector-2, Panchkula.  A copy of the F.I.R., RC, Insurance and an affidavit dated 11.05.2018 have been attached by the complainant in support of his contention.
2.                    A complaint before it is admitted for adjudication is required to qualify, inter alia, various parameters,  which may be enumerated as below;

1. That the complainant falls under the category of a consumer and that there exist a consumer dispute.
2. That this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.
3. That the relief claimed do not exceed the pecuniary  jurisdiction of this Forum.
4. That the complaint has been instituted within the period of limitation as required under Section 24A (1) of CP Act.

3.                    At this stage, prima facie, there seems to be no doubt with regard to the parameters mentioned at A to C above, however, with regard to the filing of the present complaint within the period of limitation of two years, it has been found that the cause of action had accrued in favour of the complainant on 25.08.2017 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 13.01.2020; thus, the complaint has been instituted after the expiry of two years.

                    As per Section 24A (1) of the C.P. Act, a complaint can be filed within a period of two years. For the sake of ready reference, the same is reproduced as under;

24A  Limitation Period (1) 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.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant safisfies the District Forum, 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 National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.                

4.           Regarding delay, the complainant has filed an application on 24.01.2020 seeking condonation of delay of 92 days mentioning that the complainant contacted the opposite party No.3 several times to release the compensation on account of damages to the motor cycle and that a legal notice dated 22.11.2019 was sent to the opposite parties asking them to release the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with the cost of motor cycle in favour of the complainant but no reply has been received from the OP so far.
5.           During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant praying for the condonation of delay of 92 days in filing the complaint  reiterated the grounds as taken in the complaint as well as the aforementioned application dated 24.01.2020. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the affidavit dated 11.05.2018 of the complainant which shows that the father of the complainant, who was suffering from cancer and getting treatment from PGI, Chandigarh had expired on 15.10.2017.
6.           We do not agree with the above mentioned plea of the complainant that he was prevented  from   filing the complainant earlier on account of illness of his father because the present complaint has been filed after a period of more than two years, 2 months and 13 days from the death of the father of the complainant on 15.10.2017.  Further, the plea with regard to the several visit of the complainant to the office of the OPs is also not tenable as it is a mere bald assertion which is not corroborated and substantiated by any cogent and credible documentary evidence. No other reasonable cause has been furnished by the complainant on account of which he was   prevented from filing the complaint within the period of limitation. The last plea taken by the complainant  that OPs have not responded to the legal notice dated 22.11.2019 is also of no avail to him in view of the well settled legal proposition that the period of limitation is not liable to be extended on the basis of exchange of letters between the parties. In this regard, we may safely rely upon the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal forum Delhi in 1^st appeal No.460 of 2010 titled as “ Delhi Development Authority Versus Pawan Sethi” wherein it has been held as under;

Section 24A-Limitation-Held-It is well established that the exchange of letters between the parties does not extend the period of limitation under the Act.

                   The Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Delhi, while deciding the case supra, has relied upon several case law which may be mentioned as under:-

1.      Ashok Kumar Sainia  vs. Delhi Development Authority, FA No. 183/2007 decided on 21.03.2013 by the National Commission.
2.     Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. Vs. K.C. Aggarwal, IV (2013) CPJ 567 (NC)
3. Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Tej Refrigeration Industries Ltd. decided on 16.07.2013.
4. Harbhjan Sharma Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. 1 (2015) CPJ 672 (NC) wherein the National Commission took the similar view. The relevant portion of judgment is reproduced as under;

Mere writing of letters to the respondent authority and waiting for reply for unduly long time would not extend the period of limitation. It is well settled position of law that the requirement of limitation under Section 24A(1) is a mandatory requirement and the Consumer Forum  shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years of date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(V)              State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009(2) CLT Page 541,decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been held as under;

                             “Limitation –Held that provisions of Section 24A is pre-emptor in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action-As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing- if the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality-The aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set-aside.

                   “Consumer Protection Axt, 1986, Section24A-Limitation-Cause of Action to the complainant accrued on June 7, 1994 and complaint filed on 05.05.1997-Neither application for condonation of delay nor any sufficient cause shown-The question of condonation of delay in filing the complaint does not arise-complaint barred by time and ought to have been dismissed as such-The appeal allowed-The orders of Foras below liable to be set-aside and complaint dismissed as time-barred”

          Apart from above, the Hon’ble Apex Court decided the case titled as Kandimalla Rahavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC) on similar lines wherein it is held as under;

Limitation-Time Barred-Insurance Claim-Fire in tobacco godown took place on 22/23 March, 1988-Intimation to Bank in whose favour stock hypothecated, given on 23 March itself-Insurance Company informed in November, 1992-Period of limitation expired-Section 24A-Consumer Protection Act bars Consumer For a from admitting complaint after two years from date of cause of action-Complaint before Consumer Forum filed in October 1997, dismissed as time-barred-Civil appeal filed-Contention, denial of insurance company in honouring claim received in Marc-Limitation period will commence from the date-Contention not acceptable-Cause of action not continuous till denial of claim-Filing of claim by Bank in 1988 in no way helped complainant-Insurance Company’s reply to legal notice in March, 1996, declining to issue claim forms, not resulted in extending limitation period. Complaint filed in 1997, without application of condonation of delay manifestly barred by limitation-Dismissal of complaint justified-No interference requires in appeal.

          7.       In view of the aforementioned factual as well as legal position it may, safely, be concluded that the present complaint has been preferred beyond the prescribed period of limitation and   the same is accordingly dismissed in limini with liberty to the complainant to approach the competent authority/court if he is so advised.

              A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:  03.02.2020

 

Dr.Sushma Garg        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini              Satpal

                    Member                      Member                             President

 

 

Note:                    Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

   

                                                    Satpal

                                                     President