State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Darcl Logistics Ltd. vs United India Insurance Company Limited on 17 July, 2017
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.256 of 2017
Date of Institution : 10.04.2017
Date of Decision : 17.07.2017
M/s DARCL, Logistics Ltd (formerly known as Delhi Assam
Roadways Corporation Ltd.).
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
.....Respondent/opposite party
First Appeal against order dated
14.02.2017 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Mohali.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Jainainder Saini, Advocate ............................................ J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
This order shall decide this point as to whether the order passed by the District Forum Mohali in dismissing the complaint of the appellant as barred by time is sustainable or not. The appellant being complainant before District Forum Mohali has filed this appeal challenging its order dated 14.02.2017. The District Forum held the complaint to be barred by time under Section 24-A (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, being not filed within the two years First Appeal No.256 of 2017 2 from the date of accrual of cause of action. The District Forum observed that complainant lodged claim with OP on 24.11.2010, which was closed by OP as 'no claim', vide letter dated 19.03.2013. The complainant came to know on 28.10.2014 through R.T.I. about the same. The cause of action accrues to complainant to file the complaint on 28.10.2014, whereas the complaint was filed before District Forum on 29.11.2016 beyond two years period of time and hence the District Forum rejected the complaint as barred by time.
2. We have examined the pleadings of the complainant contained in the complaint on the record. The complainant averred that it is a transport company and OP approached it and made a proposal for fidelity guarantee policy. In pursuance to the proposal of OP, complainant took a fidelity guarantee policy bearing no.112100/46/10/13/00000066 by paying premium of Rs.27,542/- for the period from 10.08.2010 to 09.08.2011. One employee namely Jasbir Singh Rohila of complainant company misappropriated the funds of the company alongwith other employees. The complainant lodged claim with OP regarding above said incident, vide letter and email dated 24.11.2010. OP allotted claim no.112100/46/10/13/90000004 to complainant. OP deputed M/s J.H. Parikh & Associates as surveyor and complainant submitted all the required documents to the surveyor. Vide letter dated 20.05.2011, received through email dated 22.05.2011, OP asked complainant to submit documents/ clarification, which was submitted by it, vide letter dated 28.06.2011. Correspondence ensued between the parties First Appeal No.256 of 2017 3 thereafter. Final police report was submitted by complainant to OP vide letter dated 25.11.2013. When nothing was heard of from OP despite several oral reminders and several personal visits, then complainant sought information under R.T.I. application dated 30.05.2014, but the same was declined by OP, vide letter dated 01.07.2014. The complainant again sought information under R.T.I. and OP sent letter dated 28.10.2014 alongwith copy of letter dated 19.03.2013, vide which, the claim of the complainant was closed as 'no claim'. The OP closed the claim file of complainant on the ground that they have not replied to the letters dated 14.03.2012 and 16.08.2012, whereas complainant replied to the said letter vide their letters dated 12.04.2012 and 26.11.2012. The complainant sent legal notice dated 25.11.2014 to OP in that regard, but to no effect. The complainant prayed that OP be directed to pay claim amount alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of lodging the claim till its realization; further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The District Forum dismissed the complaint in the preliminary hearing at admission stage of the complaint, as barred by time. The District Forum observed in its order that complainant came to know on 28.10.2014 through R.T.I. that its claim was closed as 'no claim'. The cause of action accrues to complainant to file the complaint on 28.10.2014, whereas the complaint was filed before District Forum on or before 29.11.2016 beyond two years period of time without seeking any condonation of delay and hence the District First Appeal No.256 of 2017 4 Forum rejected the complaint as barred by time. The complainant preferred the instant appeal against order of District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and find that legal notice will not extend the period of time, as sought to be pressed before us by counsel for the complainant now appellant. The cause of action accrued to complainant to file the complainant, when it got the knowledge that OP closed the claim as 'no claim'. Cause of action, thus, came to the notice of complainant on 28.10.2014, when OP gave information under R.T.I. Act for closer of the claim. Even by excluding one day period in computing period under Limitation Act, 1963, the complaint could have been filed on 29.10.2016. Being beyond the period of two years, serving of legal notice will not extend the limitation in filing the appeal. The complainant has not filed any application before the District Forum for condonation of delay at the time of filing the complaint nor it was filed at any stage. Even in the appeal, no such application was filed by the appellant. Consequently, we have not scruples in holding that cause of action accrued to complainant on 28.10.2014 and complaint was filed on 29.11.2016, which is beyond a period of two years. The complaint is barred by time on the face of it and time barred complaint cannot be admitted for regular hearing. The order of District Forum is, thus, flawless in our view.
4. We do not find any ground to admit this appeal in preliminary hearing for admission stage and the appeal is dismissed in limine.
First Appeal No.256 of 2017 5
5. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER July 17, 2017 MM