AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 21-01-2014 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (in short, ''the State Commission''), in Appeal No. 987/2012 - Shyamlal Napit Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., by which while dismissing appeal order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner got his vehicle MP 15A-1620 insured from opposite party/respondent for a period of one year from 17-05-2003 to 16-05-2004. Vehicle was stolen on 25-06-2003 and FIR was lodged and claim was submitted to the opposite party. Opposite party accepted claim and issued cheque dated 21-03-2006 for Rs.2,60,000/- in favor of the complainant but that was not encashed due to some reasons within the stipulated time. Opposite party assured to issue fresh cheque but so far cheque has not been issued. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party was proceeded ex-parte. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant dismissed complaint as barred by limitation. Appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner finally at admission stage and perused record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of repeated reminders fresh cheque was not issued by opposite party and complaint was within limitation even then learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint as barred by limitation and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be admitted.
It is not disputed that opposite party issued cheque dated 21.03.2006 for Rs.2,60,000/- in favor of complainant. Complainant did not get it encashed within the stipulated time and has not placed any document depicting acknowledgement by opposite party that they would issue fresh cheque. Complaint was filed on 18-04-2011 i.e. after almost five years of issuing cheque without any application for condonation of delay. In such circumstances, learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing complaint as barred by limitation and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing the appeal and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage. However, it is observed that opposite party being a public sector undertaking should have issued fresh cheque to the complainant whose claim was accepted by opposite party.