Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/487

M/s BMV Exim Pvt Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Puneet Gupta

04 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 487 dated 23.12.2022.                         

                             Date of decision: 04.01.2023

 

M/s BMV Exim Pvt. Ltd., Shree Shankeshwar Parashnath Jain Marg, Hussain Pura, G.T.Road (W), PIN-141008, Ludhiana through its Director Shri Bharat Bhushan Jain son of Shri Sri Pal Jain. M.No.80549-23923.

                                     

                                                                                       ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office-IV, Savitri Complex-I, Dada Motors, 1^st Floor, G.T.Road, Near Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana through its Senior Divisional Manager.PIN-141003.

…..Opposite party

Complaint under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Puneet Gupta, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                The complainant, a private limited company through its authorized person namely Sh.Bharat Bhushan Sharma, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by raising a consumer dispute with regard to the deficiency of service in the settlement of claim based upon in Marine Insurance Policy bearing cover note No.2010001000007 having the validity period w.e.f.20.04.2010 to 19.04.2011. The complainant has prayed for issuance of directions to the OP for payment of Rs.88,93,471.60P being the invoice value along with 10% as additional amount indicated under the Marine Certificates along with interest @12% per annum from the date of accrual till realization. Further, the complainant has prayed issuance of directions to the OP to pay Rs.11 lacs on account of mental tension, torture, agony and financial loss along with punitive damages of Rs.5 lacs, Rs.3,30,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.1 lac as cost etc. The complaint is supported with affidavit of complainant along with the annexed documents.  

2.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant on the point of admissibility of the complaint and gone through the record.

3.                Counsel for the complainant has reiterated the version of the complaint in their arguments and further contended that genuine claim of the complainant was arbitrarily and illegally repudiated. He has prayed for admissibility of the complaint at the preliminary stage.

4.                Perusal of the complaint and annexed documents shows that the complainant had earlier filed a Consumer Complaint No.114 of 2013 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh which was decided on 01.09.2015. The complaint was dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction with the liberty to the complainant to file his claim with the Forum having jurisdiction.

5.                The complainant has listed the events in a chronologically manner with regard to accrual of cause of action in para no.23 of the complaint which is reproduced as under:-

“That the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 20.04.2010 when the insurance policy was obtained from Ludhiana. The cause of action arose on all the dates when against the said cover note, invoices and declarations were submitted and when the opposite party has issued the marine certificates after the receipt of invoices and declarations under the policy. The cause of action also arose when invoices no.686 and 687 along with declaration No.64 and 65 dated 01.09.2010 were submitted. The cause of action also arose when the opposite party has issued the marine certificate No.201000/21/10/10/70000467 and No.201000/21/10/10/70000466 under the aforesaid cover note. The cause of action also arose when the consignment was dispatched to U.A.E. on 5.8.2011 when the surveyor has submitted his survey report; on 20.06.2012, 25.08.2012, 27.11.2012 and 23.04.2013 when the complainant has requested the opposite party to settle the claim, on 13.09.2012 when the complainant has written letter that the consignments No.605 to 609 are not covered, on 5.08.2012 when the opposite party has confirmed that they have not issued the certificates of insurance against the invoice No.638 to 643. The cause of action also arises when the complaint was filed with Grievance Cell and on 27.06.2013 when the genuine claim of the complainant was repudiated as no claim after the expiry period of three years from the date of lodging of the claim. The cause of action is recurring one and continuing one till the claim is settled and paid.”      

6.                It is evident that according to the complainant himself, cause of action firstly arose on 20.04.2010 and lastly on 23.04.2013 when the claim of the complainant was arbitrarily repudiated. It is settled law that once the cause of action begins to run it never stops. Certainly cause of action is not recurring in the present case. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides as under:-

“Limitation Period:- (1)The District Commission, 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 satisfies the District Commission, 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 District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

7.                No sufficient reasons have been shown in the complaint for non-filing of the same within the period of limitation. The complainant has already availed the remedy by filing the complaint before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh by filing the consumer complaint No.114 of 2013 on the basis of the same cause of action. The counsel for the complainant could not be explain that once the liberty was granted by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh on 01.09.2015, instead of filing the present complaint, why they did not approach the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi within the statutory period of law. In SBI versus M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries(I),(Civil Appeal No.2067 of 2022) decided on 20.03.2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:-

“(t)he expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24-A[now, S.69(1) in the new CP Act, 2019] is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed there under.”

It has been further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that “(i)if the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum (Commission) decides the complaint on merits, the forum (Commission) would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

8.                Consequently, the present complaint is time barred and we do not inclined to proceed with the same and hence the same is hereby dismissed summarily at the admission stage itself. Copies of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules.           File be indexed and consigned to record room, but after registering the same.

 

 (Monika Bhagat)            (Jaswinder Singh)      (Sanjeev Batra)                        Member                     Member                      President      

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:04.01.2023.

Gurpreet Sharma