The central legal point established in the judgment is that the complainant's status as a consumer, the timeliness of the complaint, and the wrongful repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company were crucial in reaching the decision.

JUDGMENT

Mr. M.T. Unadkat, Member (Judicial) - The Appellant/original opponent has filed present appeal challenging the order allowing the complaint passed by the Cons umer Disputes Redressal Forum, Valsad in Complaint No. 195 of 2011 dated 8.3.2013 for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to complainant and the opponent in the judgment.

2. Heard Mr. V.P. Nanavati, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. H.L. Meghnani, learned Advocate for the complainant.

3. Considering the pleadings, documents and the judgment of the leumed District Forum, following aspects are not in dispute.

(i) The complainant is the owner of the Tanker No. GJ-7G-7123.

(ii) The complainant has obtained insurance for a sum of Rs. 4 lac with the opponent by paying premium from 1.7.1999 to 30.6.2000.

(iii) The complainant has gone to Kharaghoda on 13.6.2000 at night. The complainant stopped his Tanker near Hotel Kalgi on Anand Sarkhej High Way road for the purpose of dinner and rest.

(iv) On 14.6.2000 early in the morning, the complainant did not find his tanker. He enquired nearby persons. It was not found.

(v) On 14.6.2000 the complainant filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Sanand for the theft of the tanker.

(vi) The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, directed the police to register the offence and' investigation about the theft. On that basis, the police has registered the offence and started the investigation on 15.6.2000.

(vii) The complainant submitted claim "with the opponent Insurance Company with requisite documents on 28.6.2000.

(viii) The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor Mr. Ashok M. Patel for the investigation. He submitted his report on 7.10.2001.

(ix) It is alleged by the Insurance Company that the claim is repudiated by a letter dated 28.3.2002. It is contended by the complainant that he has not received said letter. The complainant served a notice to the opponent Insurance Company on 2.4.2004 through Advocate. The Insurance Company gave reply on 6.4.2004.

(x) The complainant filed complaint before the learned District Forum at Vadodara by complaint No. 460 of 2004. It was returned on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by an order dated 6.6.2011. Thereafter the complainant submitted the claim before the learned District Forum at Valsad along with application for condonation of delay. The learned District Forum by an order dated 16.3.2012 held that there is no delay. Therefore, the complaint was registered. This order is not challenged by the opponent. The learned District Forum after considering the complaint, written statement and the documents produced by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lac with compensation, costs and interest.

(xi) The opponent Insurance Company has challenged the judgment by filing present appeal.

4. All these aspects are not in dispute. Tire Insurance Company has raised a contention about limitation. It should be decided first. It is contended that the claim was repudiated by a letter dated 28.3.2002. The complaint before the learned Forum at Baroda was filed on 3.5.2004. Therefore, the complaint is filed after two years. Therefore, it is not within the time as per the provisions of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act.

5. On the other hand, the complainant has strongly resisted the contention of the Insurance Company on the ground that the letter dated 28.3.2002 is not received by him. He was not knowing about the repudiation of the claim. He came to know when the opponent gave reply to the notice on 6.4.2004.

6. Copy of the letter dated 28.3.2002 is produced at page 78. The letter is written to 20th Century Finance Company Limited/Mr. Malkitsingh D. Gill, G.S. Auto India, N.H. No. 8, Ranoli, Baroda. Therefore, apparently it appears that letter is written to 20th Centaury Finance Company Limited. It is not written to the complainant. The opponent has stated in reply to the notice dated 6.4.2004 at pg.