SURESH KUMAR vs National Insurance Company Ltd

THE revision petition has been filed against order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.313 of 2011. The revision petition has been filed with a delay of 28 days for which an explanation has been offered in the application for condonation. However, a perusal of the application shows that it neither mentioned the quantum of delay nor does it contain reasonable explanation for it. The total explanation is contained in the following few paragraphs of the application:- "2. That the impugned order was passed on 28.12.2011 in the above said matter. The counsel engaged by the petitioner before the State Commission did not intimate about the order dated 02.12.2011 so the petitioner was not aware of the order dated 02.12.2011. It took time to collect documents from various courts and to engage counsel before this Hon ''ble Commission. So there is delay in filing the present petition. 3. That the delay in filing the petition is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reason stated above."

Reading of the above, gives no idea when the petitioner or his counsel came into knowledge about the passing of the impugned order of 28.12.2012. Similarly, it gives no idea of the quantum of delay which is attributable to collection of documents and engaging of a counsel. In short the application carries no explanation at all of the delay. The revision petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone.

COMING to the merits, the matter pertained to an insurance claim for a truck which met an accident on 7.3.2006. The claim of the Complainant/revision petitioner was repudiated by the National Insurance Company on 2.4.2007. Consumer complaint against this repudiation was instituted before the District Forum, Sonepat on 24.12.2009. The District Forum observed that there was negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OP/Insurance Company as on the one hand it had repudiated the claim of the Complainant on 2.4.2007 and on the other relied upon the report of the Surveyor for determination of quantum of loss, despite the fact that it was filed subsequent to the repudiation. The repudiation as already noted had been conveyed on 2.4.2007 when the report of the surveyor was received on 19.1.2008. The District Forum therefore, allowed the claim of the Complainant.

IN appeal, the State Commission observed that:- "Surveyor and Loss Assessor of the Insurance Company namely Shri. K.S. Hans, inspected the vehicle at Kirpal Motors, Sonepat. During the investigation it was revealed that at the time of accident, the truck in question was being plied without route permit and fitness certificate and for that reason the claim submitted by the complainant with respect to the damage of his truck was repudiated on 2.4.2007. "

FURTHER , considering that the cause of action arose when the claim was repudiated on 2.4.2007, the State Commission also concluded that the complaint, which was filed on 24.12.2009, was hopelessly barred by time. State Commission had also held that while the accident had taken place on 7.3.2006, the Complainant had informed the insurance company after a gap of ten days on 17.3.2006. This delay amounted to violation of Condition 1 of the insurance policy and was therefore, fatal to the claim of the Complainant. We have carefully perused the records and heard Mr Anil Hooda, Advocate for the revision petitioner. The revision petition seeks to challenge the order of the State Commission on the solitary substantive ground that the State Commission was wrong in holding the complaint to be time barred. Learned counsel also limited his arguments to the ground of delay. It is contended that the consumer complaint, filed on 24.12.2009, is within the permissible period of two years from the date of the final report of the surveyor i.e. 19.1.2008.

WE do not see any merit in this contention of the revision petitioner. Once his claim under the policy was repudiated by the insurance company, he had nothing else to wait for from the insurer. In other words, the cause of action had already arisen on the date of repudiation i.e. on 2.4.2007.

IN the result, we do not find any error in the impugned order, which could justify intervention of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is held to be without any merit. In the result, the petition is dismissed on the grounds of limitation as well as merit. The order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.313 of 2011 stands confirmed.