State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raj Finishing House vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 24 September, 2024
FA NO./98/2020 RAJ FINISHING VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. D.O.D.: 24.09.2024
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 03.07.2020
Date of Hearing: 05.08.2024
Date of Decision: 24.09.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO.-98/2020
IN THE MATTER OF
RAJ FINISHING HOUSE,
70, SHRI NAGAR COLONY,
BHARAT NAGAR ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110052.
(Through: Mr. Trivedi Prafulla, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.-24,
N-39, BOMBAY LIFE BUILDING,
CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,
NEW DELHI-110001.
(Through: Mr. Kapil Chawla, Advocate)
...Respondent
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 7
FA NO./98/2020 RAJ FINISHING VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. D.O.D.: 24.09.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Trivedi Prafulla, counsel for Appellant through VC.
Mr. Kapil Chawla, counsel for Respondent through VC.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had taken a Burglary Insurance policy from the OP covering stock in trade pertaining to the complainant's firm for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and plant and machinery for sum insured. of Rs.60,000 for the period 23.10.2007 1 22.10.2008 with the financial interest of Indian Overseas Bank and paid the consideration amount of Rs.876/- to the OP. In response OP on gave a computerized policy bearing No.215101/48/2008/1003 and Dave not given the terms and conditions of the said policy. Unfortunately on 02/03.08.2008, a burglary took place in the insured premises and huge stock of finished garments were missing. The complainant informed police in 100 number and an FIR bearing No. 196/2008 was lodged at P.S. Sarai Rohilla u/s 454/380 IPC. After that the complainant duly informed the officials of OP about the same total loss suffered by the complainant was to the tune of Rs.10,67,399/-, The OP Insurance Co. appointed the surveyor namely M/s Aditi Consultant Pvt. Ltd. to access the loss. All the necessary/ required papers documents were supplied to the surveyor after collecting the entire documents. surveyor recommended the loss for a sum of Rs.7.11,152/- but a copy of survey report has not been provided to the complainant despite various request. On 18.4.2009, complainant received a letter from the OP Co whereby the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 7 FA NO./98/2020 RAJ FINISHING VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. D.O.D.: 24.09.2024 two grounds viz 13 the lock of man door was not broken out, hence the same was not Forceful entry in the premises: You have not maintained adequate record of the stock. Thereafter, the complainant sent a letter dt. 14.5.2009 and various emails to the De Coon settle his claim but no reply has been received from the OP Co. non settlement of the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in services on the part of OP, complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 15.01.2020, whereby it held as under:
"3. The counsel for OP has strongly challenged the question of limitation hence, need to be decided first.
As per section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986-
1. The District Forum, the spate commission or the National Commission shall not admit complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1). A complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub- section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, 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 National Commission the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be records its reason form condoning such delay.
4. On the point of limitation, we are guided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case title State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agriculture Industries 2009 STPL 6945 SC in that case in para 12 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 7 FA NO./98/2020 RAJ FINISHING VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. D.O.D.: 24.09.2024
"As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merit only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reason recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer Fora to take notice of section 24 A and give effect to it.
5. In the present complaint the claim of the complainant was repudiated by OP vide its letter dt. 16.4.2009. The complainant ought to have filed the present complaint within two years of the accrual of cause of action i.e. from the date of repudiation letter dt 16.4.2009 which he failed to do so Moreover, the complainant had failed to place on record an application for condonation of delay. The complainant filed the present complaint on 4.7.2011 i.e. beyond the period of two years of the accrual cause of action.
6. In view of the above discussion and the judgment cited above, we are of the considered opinion that the cause of action for filing the present complaint accrued vide letter dated 16.4.2009, the present complaint was filed on 4/7/2011. The complaint is barred by limitation, therefore, we find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commission has erred in dismissing the complaint of the Complainant/Appellant on the ground of limitation after seven years from the date of institution of the complaint case before the District Commission. Further, the Appellant submitted that there was a delay of twenty-five days only in filing the complaint case no. 702/2011 before the District Commission which was due to the financial crises led by burglary leading to anxiety, disorder, depression and hypertension. Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment.
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 7 FA NO./98/2020 RAJ FINISHING VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. D.O.D.: 24.09.2024
4. The Respondent, on the other hand, has failed to file the reply to the present Appeal till date.
5. The written submissions on behalf of the Appellant are on record, wherein he reiterated the facts mentioned in the present appeal.
6. Further, the written submissions on behalf of the Respondent are on record, wherein the Respondent submitted that the claim of the Appellant was repudiated vide letter dated 16.04.2009 and the consumer complaint was filed by the Complainant/Appellant on 04.07.2011 i.e. after the expiry of two years, therefore, the present Appeal be dismissed.
7. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the Appellant and Respondent.
8. The main question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission has erred in dismissing the complaint of the Complainant/Appellant on the ground of limitation.
9. To answer this question, we primarily deem it appropriate to refer to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:-
"24A. Limitation period.-
(1) The District Forum, 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.
(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 Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint as this such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 7 FA NO./98/2020 RAJ FINISHING VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. D.O.D.: 24.09.2024
10. Analysis of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 leads us to the conclusion that every District Commission is empowered to admit a complaint if it is filed within a period of two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. It is clear that in the present case, the last cause of action arose on 16.04.2009, when the claim of the Appellant was repudiated by the Respondent. Further, the consumer compliant bearing no. 702/2011 was filed by the Appellant/Complainant before the District Commission Disputes Redressal Commission on 04.07.2011 i.e. beyond the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Therefore, it is clear that the complaint filed before the District Commission was barred by limitation period.
11. Further, we find that the said fact of delay was not explained by the Complainant/Appellant in his consumer complaint, filed before the District Commission and it came to light when the ground of limitation is pleaded by the Respondent in its written statement before District Commission.
12. In totality, we are of the considered view that the complaint case no. 702 of 2011, filed before the District Commission was barred by Limitation as defined in Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
13. Lastly, the submissions of Appellant in regard to consider the delay of only twenty-five days in filing the complaint has no legs as there was a delay of around seventy-nine days approximately after the expiry of stipulated time period of two years and no proper explanation has been provided by the Appellant in this regard.
14. Therefore, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any reasons to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 15.01.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, Distt.
New Delhi, M Block, 1st Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi- 110001.
DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 7 FA NO./98/2020 RAJ FINISHING VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. D.O.D.: 24.09.2024
15. Resultantly, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
16. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
17. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
18. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
24.09.2024 LR-AJ DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 7