AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard the learned counsel for the revision - petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
This matter relates to repudiation of claim by insurance co., against which the complainant approached the consumer fora.
The District Forum appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 13.06.2017 dismissed the complaint, inter alia holding that:
".....10. We do not find any reason to disagree to the argument submitted on behalf of the Opposite party insurance company that the complaint of the complainant being time barred is not prevalent. The event is dated 31/05/2010 to 07/06/2010 by the complainant; the first information report has been filed on 07/06/2010. No-claim letter has been sent on 16/08/2012 by the insurance company. The complainant has submitted the complaint on 19/01/2015. From the perusal of the case it is clear that the insurance claim that is filed as a result of alleged burglary, the said incident occurred on 07/06/2010 according to the police's First Information Report Annexure A.1, thus, the first cause of action is proved to be generated on 07/06/2010 and it is also clearly proven that according to the claim letter Annexure N.A.1 by opposite party insurance company by stealing on 16/08/2012 due notice of repudiation of insurance claim has been sent by registered post, this no claim letter has been received by the complainant according to the acknowledgement Annexure N.A.2 on 18/08/2012, this acknowledgement Annexure N.A.2 is an unrebutted document.
In such case, it is clear that the cause of action arose from the date of receipt of the no-claim to the complainant. In this manner the occurrence of consumer dispute for the first time is proved to be on the date of incidence 07/06/2010 and second time, the date of issue of no claim letter on 16/08/2012 is being reflected as the final occurrence of the consumer dispute. Thus, on the date of completion of two-year period on 16/08/2014 the complaint was to be finally submitted before the Forum on behalf of the complainant, but it shows that the complainant has submitted the complaint on date 26/02/2015. Under the Consumer Protection Act the complaint is out of the prescribed time frame. So, by considering the argument of the opposite party insurance company that the complaint is not within the prescribed time limit as acceptable do hereby identify that the submitted complaint being time barred is not prevalent.
The Opposite party insurance company during the pendency of insurance claim had expected answers on some points from the complainant and for this continuously in the interval of two years while informing the complainant requested answers and explanation whereas the complainant in this case has failed to submit any proof or document of this effect that the answers and clarification sought from opposite parties were submitted. In this manner in relation to insurance claim on behalf of opposite parties proper action is proved and under the insurance terms and conditions the proceedings of opposite parties cannot be kept in the category of deficiency in service and also, the complaint being time barred is clearly proven.
On the investigation of the above evidence we conclude that the act of opposite parties does not come under the category of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, consequently, we do not find complete grounds to allow the claim of the complainant, therefore dismiss the complaint."
(para 10 to 12 of the Order)
The complainant appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 22.11.2017 dismissed the appeal, inter alia holding that:
"22. Mere sending letters does not give rise to fresh cause of action to the appellant (complainant). The respondents (OPs) have already closed the claim of the appellant (complainant) as NO CLAIM on 16.08.2012 and intimation regarding the same was given to the appellant (complainant), therefore, it was the duty of the appellant (complainant) to file complaint before the concerned District Forum within two years, but the instant complaint has been filed on 26.02.2015, therefore, it is apparently barred by time. The complaint is not maintainable on limitation ground.
According to the respondents (OPs), the appellant (complainant) had not submitted required documents to the respondents (OPs). The appellant (complainant) himself did not take interest to submit documents to the respondents (OPs) for settlement of his claim, therefore, it cannot be held that the respondents (OPs) did not commit any deficiency in service.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.06.2017, passed by learned District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission."
(Para 22 to 24 of the Order)
This revision has been filed by the complainant under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 22.11.2017 of the State Commission.
Section 21 (b) of the Act is as below:
".....to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."
The State Commission's Order dated 22.11.2017 is well-reasoned. After re-appraising the evidence, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum. Grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision, is not visible. On the face of it, a jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is not visible.
There is no reason evident to interfere with the findings of the District Forum and the State Commission.
Principally, both the fora below have found the complaint barred by limitation under Section 24 A of the Act 1986. Needless to add, the Act 1986 is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law (refer section 3); the complainant was / is free to agitate its case in any other appropriate forum / court as per the law.
The revision petition is dismissed.