NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member
Rajesh Singh – Petitioner
versus
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.887 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 14/01/2019 in Appeal No. 1639/2017 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
Decided on 21.6.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) - Insurance – Theft of vehicle – Complaint barred by limitation – Complaint filed seven years after theft took place – District Forum has committed no error in dismissing the complaint, holding it to be barred by limitation :Repeated representations will not extend the period of limitation – No illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in impugned order of State Commission warranting interference under Act – There is no new ground made out by petitioner to interfere with concurrent findings in case (Paras 5,11,12,15)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed
ORDER
This Revision Petition No.887 of 2019 challenges the impugned order of the MP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (‘State Commission’) dated 14.01.2019. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed Appeal No. 1639 of 2017 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa (‘District Forum’) dated 27.07.2017 wherein the District Forum, dismissed the Complaint filed by the Petitioner as barred by limitation.
2. As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 8 days in filing of the present Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in I.A. No.7078/2019, the delay is condoned.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Petitioner/Complainant, are that he purchased a truck (Regn No. MP 17 HH 0403, Chassis No. 44026BSZ003533) financed by Respondent No. 3. The truck was insured with Respondents No. 1 and 2 for Rs. 12,00,000/- under Insurance Policy No. 00-08-9995-1803-00044006, valid from 25.02.2008 to 24.02.2009. The truck was stolen on 24.09.2008, and the Petitioner reported the theft to the police on 26.09.2008. FIR No. 60 of 2009 was filed on 04.09.2009 at Thana Atraila. He informed Respondents No. 1 and 2 about the theft on 15.09.2009, but they failed to take action or pay the insured amount. Despite multiple reminders, requests and letters dated 04.08.2011, 22.04.2012, and a legal notice on 03.09.2015, the Respondents did not settle the claim. Respondent No. 3, the financier and owner of the hypothecated vehicle, also failed to cooperate. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.
4. In reply before the learned District Forum, Respondents No.1 and 2 contended that they issued the insurance policy for the period from 25.02.2008 to 24.02.2009 for the vehicle in question. However, the complainant never provided information about the theft to the insurance company, and no duly filled claim form was submitted. The documents provided by him dated 15.09.2009 and 30.09.2008, are forged. They further averred that the complaint is time-barred and thus not maintainable. They sought dismissal of the complaint with costs. In reply, he Respondent No. 3 contended that they admit to financing the vehicle for the Complainant but deny the remaining allegations. They averred that the Complainant defaulted on payment of instalments and Rs.55,88,299/- was due as of 07.09.2016. They denied any deficiency in service and sought dismissal of the case.
5. The District Forum, vide order dated 27.07.2017 dismissed the complaint with the following directions:—
“8. Besides above, vehicle of the complainant was stolen on dated 25.09.08, however, complainant filed this complaint in this Forum on dated 23.09.15 after about seven years, which is time-barred under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection act, 1986 from any point of view. In this regard, law precedent of Dharam Kumar Aggarwal Versus Bajaj Al l ianz General Insurance Company Limited and others 2012 (1) CLCC 234 is perusable.
9. Pursuant to above analysis, it is proved that the complainant violated the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy. The complainant has not filed compensation claim also in the respondent Insurance Company, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the respondent Insurance Company. Besides above, this complaint is time barred also. Therefore, complaint is dismissed. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties will bear their own respective costs of the case.” (Extracted from translated copy)
6. On Appeal, the State Commission, vide the order dated 14.01.2019 affirmed the District Forum order with reasons as below:—
“Challenging the order dated 27.7.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa (in short ‘the Forum’), in complaint case No.249/15, the appellant/complainant has filed this appeal.
2. Briefly stated, the appellant had filed complaint alleging therein that during the intervening night of 24th-25th
State of Orissa vs. Pyarimohan Samantaray and Ors.
Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
: Limitation : Repeated representations will not extend period of limitation.
Revisional Jurisdiction of NC – Concurrent findings given by Forum & State Commission : No illegality or material irregularity: NC has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded b....
Insurance Policy – Vehicle Insurance – Theft – Insurance Company cannot travel beyond the reasons stated in repudiation letter.
(1) Insurance is contract and nothing shall be presumed which is written down in the contract.(2) Jurisdiction conferred on National Commission under Section 21 (b) of Act has been transgressed
(1) Condonation of delay – To condone such delay in filing the Revision Petition, the Petitioner needs to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the Revision Petition ....
(1) Insurable Interest during Transfer – The process of transferring insurance (submitting applications and fees) often spans several days. If an incident occurs while this process is in progress, th....
National Commission – The powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has....
The time spent pursuing an inappropriate remedy can be excluded from the period of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.