Shailendra Singh vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

LATE Brij Mohan Singh Isai had filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party/Insurer for getting the relief of Rs. 5,75,000/- towards price of the stolen truck, Rs. 1,80,000/- towards loss of business, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental suffering and Rs. 34,500/- towards interest being total sum of Rs. 8,89,500/-. During pendency of proceedings, the complainant died on 13.10.2003 and his legal heirs have been brought on record.

IN brief the facts as narrated in the complaint are that late Brij Mohan Isai had purchased a Ashok Leyland truck financed by Ashok Leyland Finance Co., Chennai under Hire Purchase Agreement and got his truck bearing No. MP 26 D 3201 insured with the opposite party/INsurer for the period from 15.3.1997 to 14.3.1998 under Police No. 190506/31/21/11/1653/96 whereby the INsurer had taken the responsibility to indemnify the insured in case of theft or other damage. On 3.7.1997 the said truck started with the load of 12 tones of Fertilizer worth Rs. 42,000/- from Railway Siding, Mandir Hasaud for Akaltara but the said truck never reached its destination and was stolen. After making inquiries at personal level the insured lodged a report with the police station at Mandir Hasaud on 13.7.1997 and also forwarded a copy of the report to the opposite parties. It has been further averred in the complaint that the opposite parties had assured the INsurer that he should wait for some time until the investigation is completed, the truck is recovered and the accused are arrested. It is averred that the opposite party No. 2 had sent a letter to ''Superintendent of Police on 3.2.1998 requesting to send the final investigation report at the earliest so that the insurance claim made by the insured may be settled. It is further alleged that the INsurer had stated that the claim cannot be settled until the report is received. The complainant had further averred that vide certificate, dated 4.1.2001 the police informed about filing of Case No. 6/99 on the ground that neither the accused nor the vehicle could be traced. Thereafter, the complainant had got notice served on the opposite parties vide regd. A.D. Post on 21.11.2002 and 10.12.2002, together with relevant claim form, report dated 13.7.1997, letter of the opposite parties dated 3.2.1998 and certificate dated 4.1.2001 regarding filing of case but the opposite parties neither gave any reply nor paid the claim, hence the complaint has been filed. The opposite party in their written version admitted that vehicle Ashok Leyland Truck No. MP 26 D 3201, owned by late Brij Mohan was comprehensively insured with them. It is further averred that the opposite party learnt from late Brij Mohan that the said truck loaded with fertilizer from Railway Siding, Mandir Hasud on 3.7.1993 did not reach the destination at Akaltara and also that FIR against the driver was lodged at P.S. Mandir Hasaud and an offence was registered under Section 407, I.P.C but as the police failed to trace either the accused or the truck, the investigation was closed. It is also averred that the deceased/insured had laid an own damage claim with the opposite party for Rs. 5,75,000/- for the missing truck as the said truck was stolen on 3.7.1993 on its way to Akaltara. It is further contended by the opposite party/Insurer that it was found that the truck was not stolen as alleged by the complainant, hence the claim was repudiated on 12.2.1998 after proper application of mind and also that the repudiation was bona fide. The opposite party had sent the repudiation letter dated 12.2.1998 to the deceased/insured by Regd. Post A.D. It is further averred that as per Article 44(b) Limitation Act, the claim with regard to insurance policy is to be filed within a period of 3 years from the date of repudiation and as such the period for filing claim expired on 17.2.2001. It is further averred that as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act also the complaint is time barred as the same has been filed on 28.12.2002 and Insurer has prayed for dismissal of the same.

The deceased/insured had filed photo copy of various documents i.e., Registration Particular Certificate, Policy issued by the opposite party/Insurer, claim form, FIR, letter dated 3.2.1998 sent by the opposite party No. 2 to the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, Certificate regarding filing of case by the police and legal notice and has also filed affidavits of Shri Parminder Singh, s/o Late Brij Mohan Singh Isai in support of the complaint.

THE opposite parties have filed coy of repudiation letter dated 12.2.1998 copy of despatch register, postal money receipt, postal acknowledgement, report of the investigator Major R.K. Tiwari dated 24.10.1997 and also an affidavit of Dr. B.R. Singh, Divisional Manager of the opposite parties. Heard arguments of both the Counsel and perused the record, including the affidavits.

THE preliminary question to be considered by us is: whether the complaint is barred by limitation? The complainant late Brij Mohan Isai has averred in the complaint that the truck laden with fertilizer worth Rs. 42,000/- on 3.7.1997 was stolen while on way from Railway Siding, Mandir Hasaud to Akaltara. Thereafter, after making inquiry at personal level the late complainant had lodged FIR with P.S., Mandir Hasaud on 13.7.1997 and had forwarded a copy of the same to the opposite parties. Learned Counsel for the complainant contended that since the opposite parties had assured the deceased/complainant that claim cannot be decided till final report is received from the police, the complainant waited for receipt of final report. He further contended that after receipt of the certificate dated 4.1.2001, whereby the police had informed about filing of the case, the deceased Brij Mohan had sent the same together with other relevant documents to the opposite parties vide registered A.D. Post on 21.11.2002 and 10.12.2002. The opposite parties neither gave any reply nor paid the claim, hence the complaint was filed on 28.12.2002, well within limitation. Parminder Singh son of the deceased complainant has in his affidavit reproduced the averments contained in the complaint. Dr. B.R. Singh, Divisional Manager of the opposite parties had stated in his affidavit that the truck was not stolen as has been alleged by the complainant but was dishonestly taken away by the driver himself, the claim was repudiated on 12.2.1998 and the opposite party had sent the repudiation letter dated 13.2.1998 to the deceased insured by registered post A.D. which was received by him on 14.2.1998. The opposite parties have also placed relevant postal acknowledgement on record and it appears that the same bears the signatures of the insured.

THE complainant''s Counsel tried to demonstrate that as the opposite party neither replied the letters dated 21.11.2002 and 10.12.2002 nor allowed the claim, late Brij Mohan had filed the complaint on 28.12.2002, as such the same was within limitation.

LEARNED Counsel for opposite parties submitted that the claim was already repudiated on 12.2.1998 and period of limitation for filing complaint is to be counted from the date of repudiation itself and not from any subsequent date as alleged on behalf of the complainant. We are of the opinion that since the claim was repudiated on 12.2.1998 and the assured had received the repudiation letter on 14.2.1998, the period of limitation would start running from the date of repudiation or at the latest from the date of knowledge of such repudiation. Any subsequent letter written by the insured cannot increase the period of limitation and the complaint is obviously barred by limitation. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the period prescribed for filing complaint is two years.

In our opinion, as there is specific period of limitation provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 there is no need to venture into provisions of the Limitation Act.

WE are of the opinion that as the complaint is barred by time, there is no need to enter into the merits of the case. The complaint is dismissed as time barred. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.