BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No  483 of 2015

Date of Institution: 6.08.2015

Date of Decision:8.12.2015

Raj Kumar age 45 years caste Aggarwal son of Late Sh. Krishan Gopal Aggarwal son of late Sh.Dhani Ram , resident of H.No. 2624/29, Bhushanpura, Sub Division  & District Amritsar (Punjab) India

Complainant

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited ,Amritsar road, Opposite SSP Office, Tarn Taran,District Tarn Taran through its branch manager

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  Sh.H.S.Chouhan,Advocate

                For the Opposite Party     : Sh.R.K.Sharma,Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Raj Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein  that he purchased motorcycle make TVS Star bearing registration No. PB-02-AV-3790 and got the same insured with the opposite party for the period from 28.4.2010 to 27.4.2011. According to the complainant the said motorcycle was stolen  on 11.5.2010. The complainant lodged complaint to the SHO Police Station “E” Division, Amritsar . On 22.3.2011 complainant lodged claim with the opposite party for settlement of his claim. SHO Police Station “E” Division issued untraced report  u/s 173 Cr.P.C. which has been accepted by the court of Sh.S.S.Maan, JMIC,Amritsar.  But the opposite party did not pay the claim to the complainant. Complainant has alleged that earlier he had filed CWP No.  12637 of 2015 in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh but the same was withdrawn with liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of appropriate Forum/Court.  Complainant has made several visits to the opposite party and requested them to pay his claim, but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to  pay the claim of motorcycle to the tune of Rs. 46000/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. From the record i.e. averments of the complaint, it is clear is that the complainant got his vehicle motorcycle make  TVS Star bearing registration No. PB-02-AV-3790 insured with the opposite party for the period from 28.4.2010 to 27.4.2011 vide insurance cover note dated 28.4.2010. The complainant alleges that the said motorcycle was stolen by some unknown persons on the night of 11.5.2010. The complaint was lodged by the complainant with the police of P.S. Kotwali vide rapat dated 12.5.2010 which was tagged by the police with FIR No. 24 dated 27.3.2010 u/s 379 IPC ,P.S. Kotwali,Amritsar. The said vehicle could not be traced out and the police i.e. concerned SHO issued untraced certificate dated 18.10.2011. Claim was lodged with the opposite party, but the opposite party did not pay the claim to the complainant. The complainant also filed writ petition i.e. CWP No. 12637 of 2015 in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, but the same was withdrawn with liberty to invoke jurisdiction  of appropriate court/Forum vide order dated 26.6.2015.
3. Alongwith complaint, complainant also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint in which he submitted that opposite party did not pay the claim of the complainant regarding the theft of the insured vehicle, so he approached the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana  High Court in Writ Petition. But the same was withdrawn with liberty to approach appropriate Forum/Court. So there is no intentional or willful delay on the part of the complainant. So delay, if any in filing the present complaint may be condoned.
4. Opposite party submitted reply in which they have submitted that opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant on 21.2.2012 and the complainant was informed through letter dated 21.2.2012 through speed post. Opposite party produced on record the repudiation letter dated 21.2.2012, postal receipt of speed post  and the dispatch register to prove that the said document i.e. repudiation letter dated 21.2.2012 was duly served to the complainant. Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the complainant could not produce any reason or explanation for delay in filing the complaint because his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 21.2.2012 and he has filed the present complaint on 6.8.2015 i.e. after a lapse of a period of three years and four months, whereas the complaint could be filed only within a period of two years as per the  Consumer Protection Act.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the record and also perused the averments of the complainant, application & reply.
6. Admittedly claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 21.2.2012 which was sent to the complainant through speed post. Opposite party has also produced on record copy of letter dated 21.2.2012, postal receipt vide which the said letter was sent to the complainant and the copy of the dispatch register which fully prove that the said letter was duly served to the complainant. So the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 21.2.2012. The complainant could not produce any reason for not filing the complaint within stipulated period of two years as per Consumer Protection Act. The complainant only put forward one ground that he filed civil writ petition No. 12637 dated 26.6.2015 in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana  at Chandigarh but the same was withdrawn with right to invoke the jurisdiction of the appropriate Forum/Court vide order dated 26.6.2015 of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. So it stands fully proved on record that said writ petition was filed by the complainant on 26.6.2015 and was withdrawn on the same day i.e. 26.6.2015 as per the order dated 26.6.2015 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana produced by the complainant himself. So there is delay of one year and four months in filing the present complaint after deducting the stipulated period of two years which remained totally unexplained . As such we hold that present complaint is barred by limitation and the complainant has failed to explain the delay in filing the complaint.

7.       Resultantly the application filed by the complainant for condonation of delay  in filing the complaint is hereby dismissed and the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed being time barred. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

8.12.2015                                                             ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/                        ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

Member                                   Member