AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COMPLAINANTS filed complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 10.4.2003 against opposite parties for recovery of Rs.2,69,00,000/- along with 24% p.a. interest and other damages.
COMPLAINANTS filed application under Section 24-A (2) of the Consumer Protection Act on 18.8.2004 and alleged that according to reply filed on behalf of OP Nos. 1 and 2 there is an inordinate delay in filing the claim petition as the claim had been repudiated by the Insurance Company on 24.3.1994 which was reaffirmed by the letter dated 29.2.1996. Complainant further submitted that complainant made a representation well within time to OP/Insurance Co. to review its decision dated 29.2.1996, but this petition was rejected by Director and General Manager vide letter dated 5.10.1998. Later on, complainant made representation from time to time to Finance Minister, Finance Secretary and Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Insurance Company to look into the matter and also submitted representation to Chairman-cum-Managing Director on 7.2.2001. Complainant also made representation to Grievance Department of the Insurance Company on 13.1.2001 and by letter dated 30.1.2001 complainant was assured that matter is being taken up with the concerned operating officer. Again complainant made representation on 3.9.2001 to the Director Public Grievances and Jt. Secretary Insurance, Govt. of India but vide letter dated 15.1.2002 complainant was informed finally about rejection of his claim and limitation starts from 15.1.2002 and thus the complaint was filed within the period of limitation. It was further alleged that had the claim of insured rejected being not maintainable, limitation would have run from the date of repudiation of the claim or from the date of its reaffirmation. In such circumstances, there is no delay in filing complaint and even if it is found that there is delay in filing complaint, there exists sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of limitation and delay deserves to be condoned. Opposite parties/Insurance Company submitted reply and alleged that application seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint is not maintainable as it has been filed after more than 16 months of filing the complaint. Application is highly belated as has been filed more than after 8 months of filing reply to the complaint by OPs in which specific objection regarding period of limitation had been raised as preliminary issue. It was further alleged that if remedy under other relevant law has become time barred, remedy for the same relief under Consumer Protection Act will not be available. Remedy under Civil Law had become barred by limitation on 24.3.1997, as such, complaint filed after expiry of period of limitation, is liable to be dismissed. It was further submitted that opposite parties confirmed their earlier decision of repudiation of insurance claim vide letter dated 29.2.1996 and 5.10.1998 and repudiation of claim vide letter dated 24.3.1994 will not enhance period of limitation by subsequent reconfirmation. It was denied that complainant was informed finally about rejection of his claim vide letter dated 15.1.2002. This fact was denied that complainant was kept in dark by giving assurance of considering his claim by the opposite parties. As the complaint is hopelessly time barred and has been filed after 9 years of the letter of repudiation dated 24.3.1994, application may be dismissed with costs.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
BRIEF facts of the case are that M/s. Shilpi Modes through its proprietor Complainant No.1 booked a consignment of 499 cartons, consisting of 49,900 pieces of cotton knitted T-shirts. This consignment was duly insured with OP No. 1. Consignment was shipped on board on 5.2.1993, but it did not reach at final destination and as such, Complainant No. 1 approached OP for redressal of its claim on various dates and provided with all the requisite documents as asked for from time to time. Opposite parties rejected claim of the complainant vide letter dated 24.3.1994 and rejection was reaffirmed by subsequent letters, hence, filed this complaint. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that as cause of action continued till 15.1.2002 when complainant was finally informed about rejection of his claim, the complaint filed on 10.4.2003 is well within limitation and further submitted that even for the sake of argument complaint is time barred delay in filing complaint may be condoned as complainant was pursing remedy before the High Court. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that complaint is hopelessly time barred and application for condonation itself has been filed after more than 16 months of filing the complaint and no reasonable explanation has been given for condonation of delay, hence, application may be rejected and complaint being time barred may be dismissed.
IT is admitted position that claim was repudiated by opposite parties vide letter dated 24.3.1994 which was reaffirmed by letter dated 29.2.1996 and representation to review the order dated 29.2.1996 was also rejected by Director and General Manager vide letter dated 5.10.1998. Limitation starts from first repudiation i.e. from 24.3.1994 and even if it is presumed that limitation should run from 5.10.1998 when review application was rejected, even then complaint has been filed after 6 1/2 years and no reasonable explanation has been given for condonation of delay. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant was pursuing his remedy to different authorities and only by letter dated 15.1.2002 his claim was rejected finally, hence, limitation may be counted from 15.1.2002. This argument is devoid of force as protracted correspondence, and that too not with the opposite parties but with other authorities, does not extend limitation and as complaint has been filed almost after 9 years of repudiation, the application for condonation of delay cannot be allowed and application is liable to be rejected. Learned Counsel for the complainant placed reliance on some judgements of the Apex Court mentioned in his written submissions but he has not placed copies of those judgements. Perusal of aforesaid judgements in written submissions reveals that Hon ''ble Apex Court has observed that such technical pleas should not ordinarily be taken up by the Government or a public authority unless of course the claim is not well founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable. We agree with the observations made by the Hon ''ble Apex Court, but these observations do not help the complainant in respect of inordinate delay of about 9 years. He also placed reliance on I (2005) CPJ 102 (NC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi Vs. District Manager, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd. in which it was held that complaint filed on 27.1.1993 was within limitation as Insurance Company committed breach of law with criminal intent and matter was under consideration as shown by Insurance Company '' s letter dated 29.5.1991. This citation does not help to the complainant at all as in the present case claim was repudiated in 1994 and repudiation was reaffirmed from time to time in 1996 and 1998, even then complainant did not file it immediately after repudiation/reaffirmation but filed it after a long delay. Learned Counsel for the complainant further submitted that Admiralty Suit No.23/1994 was filed by Complainant no. 1 before the Bombay High Court which was decided on 12.7.2002 and in such circumstances complaint was not filed before judgment. This argument is also devoid of force because in this Admiralty Suit, OP/Insurance Company was not impleaded as a defendant and complainant either ought to have impleaded Insurance Company as defendant or if not, complainant should have immediately filed complaint before the National Commission simultaneously with the suit filed before the Bombay High Court. Limitation cannot be extended on the ground of judgment delivered by Bombay High Court on 12.7.2002 and condonation of delay has not been prayed on this count in the application. In this matter, complainant has not filed application for condonation of delay along with complaint, but this application has been filed after 8 months of filing reply to the complaint by opposite parties in which specific objection regarding limitation has been raised as preliminary issue and no reasonable explanation has been given for this inordinate delay of 16 months in not filing application for condontion of delay along with complaint.
CONSEQUENTLY , application under Section 24A (2) filed by the complainant is rejected and complaint being barred by time, stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.