State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bimla Devi vs Ani Technologies Private Limited on 5 March, 2026
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.15 of 2025
Date of Institution : 13.01.2025
Date of Reserve : 16.02.2026
Date of Decision : 05.03.2026
1. Bimla Devi aged about 46 years W/o Late Pal Chand.
2. Priya Rani aged about 29 years D/o Late Pal Chand.
3. Arsh Kumar aged about 27 years S/o Late Pal Chand, all
residents of Near National Public School, Ward No.1,
Lehragaga, Tehsil Lehra and District Sangrur-148001.
....Appellants/complainants
Versus
1. ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (OLA), Auro Centre, 13, 4th C
Cross, 5th Block, Kormangala, Industrial Layout,
Koramangala, Bangalore-560095 through its Managing
Director.
2. ACKO General Insurance Ltd., Unit No.301 & 302, 3rd Floor,
F-Wing, Lotus Corporate Park, Goregaon (E), Mumbai -
400063, through its Managing Director.
....Respondents/Opposite parties
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated
28.10.2024 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Ex-parte For respondent No.2 : Sh.Sarthak Mehta, Advocate for Sh.P.H.S.Pannu, Advocate First Appeal No 15 of 2025 2 HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant- Bimla Devi against the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sangrur (in short 'District Commission'), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act (in short 'the Act') was dismissed at the preliminary stage.
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
2. Briefly stated facts of the complaint are that on the intervening night of 14.10.2018/15.10.2018, Pal Chand along with his brother Somnath, brother-in-law Bittu Kumar and Sukhdev Singh was returning to the house of his brother Somnath at Sunny Enclave, Kharar after attending the marriage at SCS Hotel in Ola Car, bearing Regn. No.PB 01 B 7916 owned by opposite party No.1. The ride was booked by Sh.Harshdeep, the close relative through his OLA mobile application. The car was being driven by Karkirat Singh in a rash and negligent manner and when they reached within the revenue estate of Village Bairali PS Balongi, Mohali at about 1:30 AM, the driver took the car on the bridge and due to his rash and negligent driving, the car fell into the river by breaking the side grills, resulting the passengers of the car sustained multiple grievous injuries and were taken to Civil Hospital, Phase-6, Mohali immediately in the ambulance. But on First Appeal No 15 of 2025 3 the way to the Hospital, Pal Chand succumbed to the injuries. An FIR No.109 dated 15.10.2018 was registered at PS Balongi, SAS Nagar, against the driver of the said car/ride. Post Mortem of Pal Chand was conducted at Civil Hospital, Phase 6, Mohali. In April, 2024, through Social Media, complainant NO.3 came to know that if any passenger, who booked the rides through App i.e. Ola/ Uber/ Rapido etc., met with an accident during the ride and dies or suffered disability then the insurance company is liable to pay Rs.5,00,000/- amount besides medical expenses as well as other expenses. After enquiry, complainant No.3 also came to know that the ride of Pal Chand was also covered under a Group Domestic Travel Policy - Ola Insurance Vide Policy No.10101/AP/01001111 (Certificate No.OLA20181015ZWGJZYRR3QYH7131YG2) dated 15.10.2018. The opposite party No.1 has charged Rs.1/- as premium of the policy, which was included in the ride-fare. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties for releasing the said insurance claim amount of Rs.5,20,000/-. On this, opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to submit the documents by downloading the claim form from their website, but the complainants unable to get the same and again approached the opposite parties but no support was given. The complainants requested multiple times to release the claim amount to the opposite parties but all in vain. A legal notice was also served upon the opposite parties No.1 & 2 by complainant No.3, which the opposite party No.1 replied through email dated 23.07.2024, First Appeal No 15 of 2025 4 wherein they advised to approach opposite party No.2 being the insurance provider. However, no information / reply was ever received from opposite party No.2. This act and conduct of the opposite parties compelled the complainant to approach the District Commission seeking following reliefs:
i) to release the claim amount of Rs.5,20,000/- to the complainants along with interest @18% per annum from the date of incident i.e. 15.10.2018 till realization;
ii) to pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and physical harassment and unfair trade practice;
iii) to pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complainant along with her complaint filed the documents in support of her contentions before the District Commission and after hearing the contentions of the complainant at the preliminary stage, the complaint was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 28.10.2024.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 and to allow her appeal.
5. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents through registered post. The respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel, whereas respondent No.1 did not appear despite service, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 29.09.2025.
First Appeal No 15 of 2025 5
6. We have heard the contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the same.
7. The main arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the appellants were bound by the Insurance Policy of the passengers, who booked their cab through Ola, Uber etc. and as and when they came to know the same, they instituted the complaint but the District Commission has not considered this aspect in proper form and dismissed the complaint in-limine on the ground of limitation.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the occurrence took place on the intervening night of 14-15.10.20218 and the complaint was instituted by the appellants/complainants on 16.10.2024, which is totally beyond the period of limitation and cannot be entertained at the preliminary stage even for the purpose of admission.
9. The issue of limitation has been duly examined by the District Commission in accordance with the provisions of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which prescribes a limitation period of two years for filing a complaint before the Consumer Fora. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is as under:
"69 Limitation Period (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.First Appeal No 15 of 2025 6
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
10. A perusal of the above Section provides that the District Commission shall admit a complaint unless it is filed within 2 years from the date of which, the cause of action accrued by considering these provisions of the Act. Definitely, the complaint filed by the appellants/complainants are much beyond the limitation period of two years.
11. Now reverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/complainants, it is submitted that the cause of action accrued to the appellants/complainants from the date on which they acquired knowledge regarding the policy benefits attached to the cabs booked through platforms such as Ola Cabs and Uber, whereby passengers were insured and entitled to compensation in the event of death occurring during the course of the ride.
12. No doubt, the aforesaid plea has been specifically taken by the appellants/complainants even in the grounds of appeal. However, it was incumbent upon the appellants/complainants to discharge the onus by placing on record cogent material to substantiate their plea regarding the existence of such policy and First Appeal No 15 of 2025 7 the alleged date of knowledge thereof. They have averred that they came to know about the said insurance policy in the year 2024 and immediately instituted the complaint thereafter. However, there is nothing available on record to demonstrate as to how and on which particular date they acquired such knowledge, nor is there any material to show the source or mode through which they became aware of the alleged insurance policy covering passengers booked through Ola Cabs. In the absence of any documentary evidence or satisfactory explanation regarding the means of knowledge, the said plea remains unsubstantiated and cannot be accepted merely on bald assertions.
13. No doubt, the FIR was got registered on 15.10.2018 but that does not give any extension of limitation. The appellants/ complainants to file the complaint after a much lapse of limitation period and after that even they took 4 years to file the complaint and from nowhere it can be gathered that they have continuous cause of action till 2024. Even there is not an iota of evidence on the file that the vehicle was booked through Ola Mobile App. It was the bounden duty of the appellants/complainants to place on record that the vehicle in which the deceased were travelling booked through Ola App and without any evidence, it is difficult to believe that pleas taken by the appellant, if any, has been validly proved on the record.
14. The cause of action initially accrued to the complainants on 15.10.2018, when the accident took place. This clearly establishes First Appeal No 15 of 2025 8 that the complaint filed by the appellants/complainants is barred by limitation. We fortify the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 2067 of 2002 titled SBI v. B.S. Agriculture Industries, wherein it has categorically held that entertaining and deciding a time-barred complaint on merits would amount to an illegality on the part of the Consumer Forum.
15. The District Commission while deciding the complaint has rightly observed that no sufficient reasons have been shown in the complaint for non-filing of the same within the period of limitation.
16. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the order of the District Commission. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants/complainants is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court case.
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER March 5th ,2026 parmod