National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mr. Vandan Pareshkumar Manghita ... vs The Divisional Manager National ... on 8 October, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2013 (From the order dated 31.10.2013 in Misc. Appl. NO. MA/12/394 in Consumer Complaint No.12/322 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai) Mr. Vandan Pareshkumar Manghita Director of M/s. Solar Chemforts Pvt. Ltd. Office at 15, Amrit Keshav Nayak Marg, 3rd Floor, Near Empire Cinema, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 (Maharashtra) Appellant/Complainant Versus The Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. 4th Floor, Sterling Cinema Building 65, Murzban Road, Mumbai 400 001 (Maharashtra) Respondent/ Opp. Party (OP) BEFORE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Ganesh Shirke, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Kishore Rawat and Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocates PRONOUNCED ON 8th October, 2014 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, the State Commission) in Misc. Appl. No. MA/12/394 in Consumer Complaint No. 12/322 Mr. Vandan Pareshkumar Manghita, Director of M/s. Solar Chemforts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Div. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. by which, application for condonation of delay of 394 days in filing complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellants goods in various godowns were insured by OP/respondent by fire and peril policy from 28.2.2008 to 27.2.2009. On 5.4.2008, fire broke down in godown and complainant suffered damages. Complainant intimated to OP regarding fire and OP appointed surveyor. Complainant furnished all requisite documents to the surveyor, but neither surveyor submitted report, nor claim of the complainant was granted.
On 21.3.2012, OP intimated complainant that case has been closed. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint along with application for condonation of delay under Section 24-A of the C.P. Act. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed application for condonation of delay against which, this appeal has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that strictly speaking there was no occasion for filing application for condonation of delay, but as a precautionary measure, application for condonation of delay was filed and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application and dismissing complaint; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and alleged delay be condoned. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.
5. In paragraph 13 of the complainant, complainant had pleaded that cause of action accrued on 21.3.2012 when he received letter from OP refusing to consider his claim. Paragraph 8 of the application under Section 24-A runs as under:
8. The complainant submit that opposite party repudiate the claim of Rs.59,10,293/- vide letter dated (blank) and therefore first cause of action arose on when the opposite party repudiate the claim of the complainant. Thereafter due to the continuous follow up with the opposite party for their Legitimate claim, the opposite party had again send the repudiation letter 03/2012 and the present complaint was filed on (blank) which is within time limit of two years as per section 24-A Consumer Protection Act 1986.
6. Later on, complainant moved miscellaneous application No. 394/2012 for amendment in condonation of delay application and submitted that he may be allowed to insert 394 days delay in the application and lastly requested that delay of 394 days in filing complaint may be condoned.
7. Learned State Commission rightly observed that in first application dated 21.11.2012, number of days of delay to be condoned has not been mentioned and in subsequent application, delay of 394 days has been mentioned. It was further rightly observed that application for condonation of delay does not reflect any reason for condonation of delay.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as claim was repudiated by letter dated 21.3.2012, complaint was well within limitation, but as abundant precaution, application for condonation of delay has been filed. Whereas learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that vide letter dated 20.3.2009, appellant was intimated that claim was closed as it was not supported by valid documents/information. Again, vide letter dated 8.9.2009, appellant was intimated regarding closing of the case as no claim. Further, by letter dated 8.8.2011, appellant was again intimated that claim was closed as no claim as indicated vide letter dated 8.9.2009. Again by letter dated 21.3.2012, respondent intimated to the appellant that claim was closed as no claim and intimation was given by letter dated 8.9.2009. By perusal of all these letters it becomes clear that respondent closed claim of appellant as no claim vide letter dated 8.9.2009 and he should have filed complaint within 2 years from the date of receipt of letter dated 8.9.2009.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that claim was repudiated by letter dated 21.3.2012 which is apparently not correct. By this letter it was communicated that claim had already been closed vide letter dated 8.9.2009 and perusal of this letter does not reveal that claim was repudiated by this letter. Mere correspondence does not extend limitation and complaint was to be filed within period of 2 years from first intimation dated 8.9.2009 regarding no claim.
10. As complaint was not filed within period of 2 years from 8.9.2009 and complainant has not given any reason for condonation of delay in application under Section 24-A, learned State Commission rightly dismissed application and complaint and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER k