Mukesh Kumar Shreya vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.10.2012 passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 61/2012 Mukesh Kumar Shreya Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 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 UBP(A) 0042 (T) insured with OP/respondent for a period of one year from 28.01.2004 to 27.1.2005. On 12.4.2004, vehicle met with an accident and sanked in Gang canal. FIR was lodged. After recovery of vehicle surveyor inspected the vehicle. Surveyor was given an estimate of repairs to the tune of Rs.3,90,423.82, but OP did not settle claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complaint was barred by limitation and it was further submitted that as complainant did not supply desired documents to the surveyor, claim was closed and intimation was given vide letter dated 31.3.3006 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. 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 parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after sending notice dated 14.5.2010, OP did not settle claim and claim was within limitation from aforesaid notice 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 allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be allowed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that incident took place on 12.4.2004 and as documents were not supplied by complainant, OP closed case as "no claim" and intimation was given to the complainant vide letter dated 31.3.2006. Admittedly, complaint was filed on 16.7.2010, i.e., after 4 years and 3 months. Neither any application for condonation of inordinate delay of 4 years and 3 months has been filed, nor any explanation has been given in the complaint. 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 illegality in dismissing appeal.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint was well within limitation from the date of notice dated 14.5.2010. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place any law before me in support of his contention that limitation is extended by giving legal notice when limitation had already lapsed. In such circumstances, this argument is devoid of force and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.