BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHARKHI DADRI.
Complaint No.: 198 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 10.07.2015.
Date of Order: 01.04.2019.
Balwan Singh son of Shri Ram Chander, resident of village Bidhlan, Tehsil and District Sonepat.
…..Complainant.
Versus
1. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., D.A B 42-C, IIIrd Floor, Moolchand Commercial Complex, New Delhi.
2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Red Cross Bhawan, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri Surender Khurana, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is owner of the Santro GLS, Hyundai bearing No.HR-10 R 4532 and the same was insured with the OPs w.e.f. 5.5.2012 to 5.5.2013 for Rs.3,00,000/-. It is alleged that on 13.2.2013, insured vehicle was met with an accident near village Tigrana Mor on main Bhiwani-Hisar road with a bike, the bike rider dashed directly into the vehicle of the complainant and fled away from the spot and the vehicle of the complainant was damaged. It is further alleged that the complainant has informed the OPs and the OPs have deputed a surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report with the OPs. It is further alleged that the complainant has got repaired the insured vehicle from M/s Raghu Hyundai, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani by paying Rs.14,050/- vide bill No. 6072 dated 20.2.2013. It is further alleged that the surveyor of the OPs has assured complainant that all the payments of repair will be borne by the OPs immediately after completion of the repair of the vehicle, but they did not pay the claim despite several visits and requests made by the complainant. It is further alleged that a legal notice dated 22.1.2015 was also got served upon the OPs, but to no effect. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, OPs appeared and filed the contested written statement alleging therein that accident has taken place on 13.2.2013 and the present complaint is hopelessly barred by time and is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is further alleged that the accident was not reported by the complainant to the OPs and no claim has been lodged by the complainant with the OPs, thus there was no question to appoint any surveyor. It is further alleged that complainant also did not report the alleged accident to the police. It is further alleged that the name of the surveyor who conducted the surveyor also not given. It is further alleged that the name of the counsel who served legal notice has also not been given by the complainant. It is further alleged that a false story about the accident has been concocted after the lapse of two years to extort money illegally. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant to prove his case placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
4. Ld. Counsel for the OPs has placed on record affidavit Ex. RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties at length and having gone through the material available on the record, we are of the considered view that complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal being barred by limitation, because as per the complainant the accident has taken place on13.2.2013 and he has filed the present complaint only on 10.7.2015 i.e. after a period of more than 2 years & 5 months. In the present complaint no application for condonation of delay has been filed by complainant. As per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 amended upto date limitation period for filing the complaint is of two years from the date of cause of action and in the present case the cause of action arose to complainant on 13.2.2013. But the complainant has filed the present complaint after lapse of more than 2 years time i.e. 800 days. Thus the complainant has filed the present complaint after delay of 150 days from the cause of action. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide its order dated 22.11.2018 in revision petition titled as Sudershan Pal Vs Supreme Mobiles Ltd., bearing RP No. 183 of 2018, has also dismissed the application for condonation of delay as well as revision petition, because the applicant has failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of 330 days.
7. Moreover, on merits also the complaint deserves dismissal, because the complainant has failed to prove the factum of accident on record by placing on record copy of FIR/DDR and photographs of the alleged accident. The complainant has also failed to prove on record that the intimation regarding the accident was given to the OPs on the same day by placing on record some documentary proof.
8. Therefore, in view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above, the present complaint is hereby dismissed on both scores i.e. merits as well as being hopelessly barred by limitation with no order to cost. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated: - 01.04.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
