State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
B.M , United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Rahul Moda on 7 September, 2018
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2018/431
Instituted on : 23.06.2018
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, IInd Floor, Shanti Palace,
Sarla Villa, Chakradhar Nagar Road, Raigarh,
Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) ...... Appellant (O.P.)
Vs.
Rahul Moda, S/o Shri Ramnivas Moda,
Aged 32 years, Occupation Business,
R/o : Station Road,
Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) .... Respondent (Complainant)
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT. RUCHI GOEL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellant (O.P.).
None for the respondent (complainant).
ORDER
DATED : 07 /SEPTEMBER/2018 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.04.2018, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.131/2017. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed that :-
(a) The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.68,534/- (Rs. Sixty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Four), which is cost of the stolen vehicle, to the complainant within period of one month.
(b) The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) towards compensation for mental agony and financial loss and // 2 // Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards cost of litigation, to the complainant within period of one month.
(c) The O.P. will pay the decretal amount within one month, otherwise interest @ 9% p.a. will be payable from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 21.12.2017 till realization.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that, the complainant is registered owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No.C.G.13-P-0524, which was insured with the O.P. for the period from 16.04.2011 to 15.04.2012. The Cover Note No. is 357770. In the night of 20.12.2011, the motor cycle bearing registration No.C.G.13-P-0524, which was in the name of the complainant, was stolen from the in front of the shop. The complainant lodged the First Information Report No.891/2011 on 20.12.2011 itself and gave intimation regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle to the O.P. on 21.12.2011. After receiving intimation regarding the theft, the O.P. appointed Shri Ajay Nigam, as Investigator. Shri Ajay Nigam, came to complainant and obtained original Certificate of Registration, original cover note, certified copy of First Information Report, intimation given to the R.T.O., Claim Form etc. and told the complainant that the complainant is required to submit final report and both the keys of the vehicle to the O.P. On 14.05.2012, the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh issued final report (Khatma) regarding the complaint made by the complainant copy of which and both keys of the vehicle in question, was submitted to the O.P. After receiving both the keys of the vehicle and Final Report, the then Branch Manager of the O.P. told that after completion of necessary formalities in respect of claim of the complainant, // 3 // the payment would be made in respect of his claim. Thereafter several times, the complainant went to the office of the O.P. for taking information regarding his claim, but the O.P. informed that after completion of the official formalities, the claim would be settled, but in the meantime the then Branch Manager, was transferred and it was told to the complainant that when new Branch Manager will come, then his claim would be settled. When the new Branch Manager joined the office of the O.P., then the complainant met with him, the Branch Manager informed the complainant that the claim file of the complainant is missing and when the file would be traced, the claim amount would be paid to him. The complainant several times contacted to the O.P. and four years was lapsed. In the month of December, the complainant went to the Office of the O.P. where the Branch Manager told the complainant to give policy cover note available with the complainant and all other documents, because the original file is missing. The copy of the insurance policy would be obtained from the office of the O.P. and will try to take further action in respect of claim of the complainant. Thereafter the O.P. did not take any action, therefore, on 06.06.2017, the O.P. sent notice to the O.P. through his Advocate and demanded compensation, but the O.P. did not give reply of the above notice. Hence the complainant has filed the instant complaint before the District Forum, and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The O.P. filed its written statement and averred on being intimation received from the complainant regarding the theft of the Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle, the O.P. immediately appointed Shri Ajay Nigam as Investigator.
// 4 // During the Investigation, the Investigator sent letter to the complainant and demanded documents regarding the vehicle i.e. original R.C. Book, original insurance policy, intimation given to the R.T.O., copy of First Information Report, both the keys of the vehicle, original and duplicate invoice in respect of purchase of the vehicle, affidavit of the complainant and affidavit of Mr. Rathin Banjejee, but the complainant had not provided any documents to the Investigator and did not deposit the same with the O.P., therefore, ultimately vide letter dated 02.05.2012, the claim of the complainant was closed by the O.P. on the ground that the complainant did not provide the original insurance policy, Khatma report issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate, both keys of the vehicle, Form No.28, 29, 30, Subrogation Letter, intimation given to the R.T.O. regarding the incident, therefore, the claim file was closed. The complainant did not provide the desired information to the O.P. The O.P. had already closed the claim of the complainant on 02.05.2012, prior to receiving the legal notice from the complainant. According to the complainant, the incident of theft of vehicle in question occurred on 20.12.2011 and the complainant was required to file the instant complaint within two years. By sending notice through advocate dated 06.06.2017, no cause of action is accrued. The complaint of the complainant is barred by time. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant has filed documents. Document No.1 is Motor Vehicle Cover Note No.357770, document No.2 is Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13-P-0524,, document No.3 is Tax Invoice dated 15.04.2011 issued by Jindal Automobiles, document No.4 is First Information // 5 // Report (Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.), document No.5 is letter dated 21.12.2011 sent by the complainant to the O.P., document No.6 is challan, document No.7 is letter sent by Shri Ajay Nigam, Investigator to the complainant in the month of February, 2012, document No.8 is Police Final Investigation Report dated 02.07.2012, document No.9 is registered legal notice dated 06.06.2017 sent by Shri Mukesh Goyal, Advocate to the O.P., document No.10 is postal receipt, document 11 is acknowledgement.
5. The O.P. has filed documents. Document No.1 is letter sent by Shri Ajay Nigam, Investigator to the complainant in the month of February, 2012, document No.2 is letter dated 02.05.2012 sent by O.P. to the complainant.
6. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, has dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.
7. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that when intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was received from the respondent (complainant), the appellant (O.P.) immediately appointed Shri Ajay Nigam as Investigator. During the course investigation, the Investigator sent letters to the complainant and demanded documents regarding the vehicle in question i.e. original R.C. Book, insurance policy, intimation given to the concerned R.T.O., copy of First Information Report and both the keys of the vehicle, but the above documents and keys were not provided by the complainant to the Investigator, therefore, the claim of the complainant was closed by the O.P. and intimation regarding the same was // 6 // given by the O.P. to the complainant vide letter dated 02.05.2012. The complainant filed the instant complaint on 21.12.2017, therefore, the complaint is barred by time. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) may be allowed.
8. None appeared for the respondent (complainant) on 25.08.2015, when the case is fixed for arguments, inspite of service of notice.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) and have perused the record of the District Forum as well as the impugned order.
10. The complainant has filed document No.2 i.e. Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13-P-0524 and document No.1 i.e. insurance policy. Looking to the above documents, it appears that the complainant is registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13-P- 0524. The vehicle was insured with the O.P. for the period from 16.04.2011 to 15.04.2012.
11. According to the complainant the vehicle was stolen on 20.12.2011 and information regarding the same was given to the concerned Police Station, where Crime No.891/2011 was registered. The intimation was also given to the O.P. regarding the theft of the vehicle. The O.P. pleaded that when O.P. received the intimation from the complainant regarding the theft of the vehicle, Shri Ajay Nigam, was appointed as Investigator by the O.P. It shows that the complainant gave intimation regarding theft of the vehicle to the O.P. without delay. Document No.4, which has been filed by the complainant , is copy of // 7 // First Information Report. In the First Information Report, the date of incident is mentioned 20.12.2011 and First Information Report was also lodged on the same day before Police Station, Kotwali, aigarh (C.G.) It shows that the First Information Report was lodged without delay.
12. Now we shall examine whether the complaint of the complainant is barred by time ?
13. According to the complainant, the incident of theft of the vehicle in question, took place on 20.12.2011 and he gave intimation regarding the same to the O.P. and submitted his claim before the O.P. The O.P. appointed Shri Ajay Nigam, as Investigator. According to the O.P., the complainant has not filed documents, as demanded by the Investigator, then the claim of the complainant was closed by the O.P. on 02.05.2012. The O.P. send the letter dated 02.05.2012 to the complainant.
14. Generally, the limitation starts from the date of incident. In the instant case, the incident took place on 20.12.2011, therefore, the cause of action accrued on 20.12.2011. For sake of arguments, if we presume that the cause of action accrued when the claim of the complainant was closed by the Insurance Company . According to the O.P., the O.P. closed the claim of the complainant on 02.05.2012, therefore, the cause of action was accrued on 02.05.2012. The complainant pleaded that he sent notice to the O.P. regarding his claim prior to 06.06.2017. It shows that after submitting claim before the O.P., the complainant had not sent any letter to the O.P. regarding his claim. Mere sending notice // 8 // and making correspondence is not sufficient to bring the complaint within limitation.
15. In United Bank of India vs. Janata Paradise Hotel and Restaurant, IV (2014) CPJ 383 (NC), Honble National Commission has observed thus :-
"6.......... correspondence does not extend limitation, particularly, when first request for refund is made after claim became time-barred. In this matter, claim became time barred in the year 1995 and letter has been written on 18.11.2007. Complainant has not placed any letter from 1995 to 2007 and, thus claim being barred by limitation, learned District Form committed error in allowing complaint."
16. In Vandan Pareshkumar Manghita vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 (4) CLT. 254, Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Mere correspondence does not extend limitation and complaint was to be filed within period of 2 years from first intimation."
17. The complainant has filed the instant complaint on 21.12.2017, which is expressly barred by time, therefore, the impugned order dated 02.04.2018, passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
18. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.04.2018, passed by the District Forum, is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent (complainant), shall stand dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Smt. Ruchi Goel)
President Member Member
07/09/2018 07 /09/2018 07 /09/2018