Punjab

Sangrur

CC/600/2016

Surjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Shri J.S.Kaler

08 Feb 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 600                                                                                        

                                                                  Instituted on:  07.10.2016

                                                                   Decided on:    08.02.2017

 

Surjit Singh son of late. Darshan Singh  resident of #307, Ward No.11, Sherpur Road, Backside of Petrol Pump, Dhuri, District Sangrur.   

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

1.       United India Insurance Company having registered office at SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Regional Office, Chandigarh through its Branch Head.

2.       United India Insurance Company having Divisional Office, Railway Road, Sangrur through its Manager.   

        ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:        Shri J.S.Kaler Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES  :         Shri Ashish Garg, Advocate         

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

     

           

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Surjit Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he got insured his truck bearing number PB-13Z-4961  with OPs and paid consideration for the insurance. On 13.11.2013,  the vehicle in question  met with an accident and information of which was immediately given to the OPs who appointed surveyor who visited the spot and verified the facts. The complainant got repaired his vehicle from Gobind Motors, Rampura Phool and all the bills and  necessary documents were submitted to the OPs.  The complainant spent an amount of Rs.12,78,757/-  but the OPs inspite of original and genuine claim released an amount of Rs.5,19,735/- on 25.04.2014. The complainant oral requests  to the OPs for payment of remaining amount  but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to release an amount of Rs.7,59,022/- ,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.33000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections on the grounds of jurisdiction,  maintainability and limitation have been taken up. On merits, it is submitted that truck of the complainant insured for the period of 11.08.2013 to 10.08.2014 and sum insured was Rs.22,00,000/-. After receiving the intimation, OPs appointed Er. Rajesh Aggarwal surveyor  who submitted his spot report dated 18.11.2013 assessing an amount of Rs.5,19,735/- as loss after deducting depreciation, salvage value  and excess clause of the policy.  The complainant also gave his consent  to accept Rs.4,95,522/- in full and final settlement. The OPs company rightly and legally paid Rs.5,19,735/- to the complainant on 25.04.2016 which was accepted by him  in full and final payment without any protest. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to  Ex.OP-7 and closed evidence.   

4.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, first of all we find that Ops have taken a specific legal objection that the present complaint is not within limitation, therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, without touching the merits of the complaint of complainant, we want to go to on this point only.

5.             It is complainant's own case that  his truck in question met with an accident on 13.11.2013 and intimation of which was immediately given to the OPs who appointed surveyor  and he spent an amount of Rs.12,78,757/-  but the  after submission of complete documents the OPs released an amount of Rs.5,19,735/-  on 25.04.2014 and thereafter on 27.05.2015  a legal notice was also sent to the OPs. It is further stated that oral request was also made to the OPs for release of remaining amount. On the other hand,  in their reply the OPs have stated that the truck inquestion was insured for a period of 11.08.2013 to 10.08.2014 and after obtaining a report from the surveyor an amount of Rs.5,19,735/- was paid to the complainant on 25.04.2014 which was received by him without any protest.

6.             From the perusal of copy of account statement of HDFC Bank of the complainant Ex.C-12, we find that an amount of Rs.5,19,735/- was deposited  by United India Insurance Company on 25.04.2014  and on 26.04.2014 the complainant withdrawn Rs.3,00,000/- through a cheque and further withdrawn Rs.20,000/- five times on 26.04.2014  and 28.04.2014  and also withdrawn some other amount on 30.04.2014 and 02.05.2014  which show that it was in the knowledge of the complainant that the United India Insurance Company i.e. OPs deposited  Rs.5,19,735/- on 25.04.2014 and it also clearly came into the knowledge of the complainant on 26.04.2014 when he withdrawn Rs.3,00,000/- from his account.  But, surprisingly the complainant did not  make an objection  regarding less deposited amount by sending a protest letter to the OPs. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any record/ document which shows that he made any effort to object the less deposited amount. The complainant had filed the present complaint on 07.10.2016 which was filed after  about two years and five months from the knowledge of deposited claim amount by the OPs in the account of the complainant. The complainant has stated in his complaint that he had sent a legal notice to the OPs on 27.05.2015. Surprisingly enough it was also sent after elapse of about one year from the deposited amount but it is settled law that writing of letters does not extend the period of limitation. Further, the complainant has not made any effort even filed an application to condone the delay in filing the present complaint at the time of filing the present complaint.  In Surgichem Products (India) Pvt. Limited Vs.  Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India, 2008 (4) C.P.J. ( NC) 270  the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission has held that  complaint  delayed by 11months, 10 days but condonation of delay was not applied and correspondence does not extend period of limitation and complaint was dismissed.        

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that the present complaint is barred by limitation and as such without touching the merit of the case we dismiss the present complaint only on the ground of limitation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                

                Announced

                February 08, 2017

 

 

 

 

( Vinod Kumar Gulati )  ( Sarita Garg)       (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                  Member                    Member                            President

 

 

BBS/-