Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member
Agarwal & Company – Appellant
versus
United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No.805 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 28/02/2019 in Complaint No. 39/2015 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 4.10.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Appeal – Services – Insurance – Repudiation of Claim – Practice and procedure – Condonation of Delay – It is certainly not a case in which the consumer in order to bridge up the delay in filing the petition has created some kind of evidence in the nature of an alibi in order to pretend that the cause was continuing and then plead that bar of limitation should not operate. The chain of events which followed and which have been given in detail in the grounds of appeal along with relevant annexures in its support abundantly reveal that there is sufficient factual basis from which emanate legitimate acceptable cause to explain the said delay in filing the complaint. That the perusal of the impugned order makes it apparent that this aspect of the law that is to say the perspective of Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act has somehow been shelved and has not been adequately brought to bear upon and weighed in the impugned Order. It appears that learned State Commission confined its judicial enquiry more on the point as to whether there was continuing cause of action or not. The case law which has been referred to in the impugned Order primarily relates to this aspect of the matter. Thus, it is appropriate to observe that it feels satisfied that the circumstances of the case are such that the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay for the reason that there was ‘sufficient cause’ available to explain the same. There may be cases where it may be found that the consumer has never been conscious about his rights and has with indifference and apathy almost acquiesced in with its grievance or where it may be found that just as a matter of casual reaction which completely lacked sincerity some of kind of semblance of correspondence has been dropped in after long unexplained gap of time and on the basis of which it has been sought to be pleaded that the cause was of continuing nature or that the cause of action had not terminated or sufficiently matured up. In the ultimate analysis whether the said correspondence or attempt was a meaningless, frivolous, pretentious exercise or whether the events which subsequently occurred and the conduct of the consumer was such which may go to demonstrate that it had a genuine bona fide hue and where it had reason to believe that filing a complaint in the court was not the last option left and his grievance was very likely to be redressed at the other side of the desk itself, these are all questions of fact which have to be seen, assessed and weighed and inferred in correct perspective keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of each case in their entirety – On facts, State Commission should have judiciously deigned to consider the explanatory circumstances of the case as good enough to constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay – Thus, the impugned Order stands set aside. The matter is remitted back to the State Commission – Appeal disposed off. [Paras 10 to 16]
Result: Appeal disposed off.
ORDER
This first appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 28.02.2019 of the State Commission in appeal no.39 of 2015 of the State Commission Rajasthan.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 28.02.2019 and the memorandum of appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:—
Complainant, which is jeweller, obtained a Jewellers Block Policy from the opposite party insurance company which was valid for the relevant period from 22.07.2010 to 21.07.2011. During the currency of the policy, however, in the intervening night of 28-29.01.2011, during the transit, the said gold bar was stolen. Appellant came to know about the theft on 29.01.2011 and it immediately intimated the insurance company about the theft of the gold bar telephonically. Subsequently, on 31.01.2011 the appellant had also submitted a written intimation to the insurance company about the theft of gold bar. An FIR No. 15 dated 03.02.2011 also seems to have been registered at P.S. Tilak Marg, New Delhi under Section 379 IPC. A number of surveyors were appointed. Eventually, on 19.09.2012 the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground of negligence on the part of appellant. However, insurance company did not provide any explanation or reason qua negligence. Appellant moved an application under RTI to the insurance company seeking information about the alleged gross negligence on the basis of which its claim was repudiated. The appellant received reply of the RTI application along with the report of the surveyor in July 2013. The appellant provided point-wise explanation of the points raised in the report of the final surveyor and requested the insurance company to review the claim. The request of review of the reputation of the claim of appellant was registered by the Regional Grievance Redressal Committee of the insurance company vide grievance number DG0000032014 dated 27.05.2014. However, vide its letter dated 25.07.2014 the insurance company informed the appellant that Regional Grievance Redressal Committee had reviewed the claim file and refused to reverse the decision of repudiation of the claim.
4. Thus, aggrieved, the Complainant approached the State Commission with its consumer complaint.
5. The State Commission vide its impugned Order seems to have dismissed the complaint on the point of limitation, holding the same to have been filed beyond the time prescribed under the Act. It appears that the learned State Commission has tried to adjudicate upon the aspect whether the case at hand involved continued cause of action or not. That seems to have been the focus of its judicial enquiry. It further transpires that as the State Commission did not feel convinced about the continuing nature of cause it found the complaint as time-barred and dismissed the same on that ground. Certain case laws have also been cited which need not to be reproduced all over again here which related to the conspicuous facts of particular cases where the National Commission has held that the cause of action may not be qualified as being ‘continuing cause of action’. After citing certain case laws on this point wherein continuity of action was not upheld by this Commission, the fora below proceeded to dismiss the complaint finding it to have been filed beyond the period of limitation. It may be read in between the lines of the concluding paragraph of the impugned Order that in the present case the State Commission did not find the doctrine or principle of continued case of action applicable. It would suffice to extract out the concluding paragraph of the impugned Order:—
“In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission first cause of action arose in the favour of Complainant on the date of theft itself. The maximum time to wait to file complaint would be the date when the claim of the Complainant was clearly repudia
(1) Sufficient Cause - Thus, it is appropriate to observe that it feels satisfied that the circumstances of the case are such that the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay for the reason....
Insurance Policy – Vehicle Insurance – Theft – Insurance Company cannot travel beyond the reasons stated in repudiation letter.
A consumer complaint must be filed within two years of the cause of action, specifically the date of claim repudiation; prolonged correspondence does not extend this period, and any delay requires a ....
1) Mere reading shows that Violation of Policy Conditions written in surveyor’s report are patently ambiguous and incoherent.2) Nothing prevented the insurance co.’s surveyor to confirm from relevant....
1) Neither employees carrying the gold took any step for its recovery after theft nor did the petitioner, who was informed on telephone asked them to take any step for recovery of the theft good; thu....
No relief can be given on a time-barred complaint.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
