MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
ORDER
29.11.2023
A complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing registration no.PB-11 CP 5986 , duly insured with the OP vide policy bearing no.2219003119P113775127 w.e.f 31.01.2020 to 30.01.2021.
On 02.12.2020 the vehicle in question met with an accident at Robertsganj, Uttar Pradesh which was driven by one Rajid Ali. It is further alleged that the driver is trained in carrying hazardous goods and is having Hazardious Training Certificate. The intimation of the incident was immediately given to OP Ins. Co. and the claim was lodged through claim form dated 14.12.2020. On 10.12.2020 OP Ins. Co. appointed the surveyor and thereafter again on 03.04.2021 OP appointed another surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 5,55,515/- It is alleged by the complainant that the requisite documents was provided to the OP as and when required but despite receiving the entire record OP arbitrarily rejected the claim vide letter dated 19.07.2021. Against repudiation, vide letter dated 26.07.2021 complainant further clarify to the OP on the grounds of rejection but OP remained adamant on the earlier repudiation and again repudiated the claim vide letter dated 30.08.2021 and 29.03.2022. It is alleged by the complainant that repudiation of the genuine claim by the OP on false and flimsy ground amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP, hence, this complaint.
We have heard the argument advance at the bar on behalf of complainant regarding the admissibility of the complaint as well as on the issue of limitation.
Perusal of the record shows that the incident in question occurred on 02.12.2020, the OP Insurance Co. repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dated 19.07.2021. The complainant approached this commission on the basis of letter dated 29.03.2022 issued by OP Insurance Co. thereby again repudiating the claim of the complainant. The complainant had relied upon the repudiation letter dated 29.03.2022 for condoning the delay in filing the present complaint.
Admittedly, the complainant approached this Commission and filed the present complaint on 04.09.2023
Let us peruse the relevant provision in respect of limitation provided under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
As per section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019: -
- 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.
- Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1). A complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the state commission or the National Comission , 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, as the case may be records its reason form condoning such delay.
A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the complaint should be preferred within a period of two years of the accrual of cause of action.
On perusal of record before us, we found that the cause of action for filing the present complaint firstly arose on 02.12.2020 and thereafter the final cause of action for filing the present complaint arose vide repudiation letter dated 19.07.2021. The complainant ought to have file the present complaint within two years of the accrual of cause of action but the complainant failed to do so. The letter dated 29.03.2022 relied upon by the complainant for condonation of delay in filing the present complaint does not create the fresh cause of action/revive the cause of action in filing the present complaint in favor of the complainant. Hence, we are of the considered view that substantive cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 19.07.2021 and the complainant has filed the present complaint on 04.09.2023 i.e after 2 years and 47 days of the accrual of the cause of action.
In view of the above discussion we are of the considered view that the present complaint is barred by limitation. Hence dismissed.
File be consigned to record room.
Sanjay Kumar Nipur Chandna Rajesh
President Member Member
