Consumer Complaints Must Be Lodged Within Two Years From Date Of Cause Of Action: Delhi State Commission

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant had obtained an insurance policy covering gold jewellery worth Rs. 3,57,27,980 from Oriental Insurance/insurer. The policy included transit coverage for various movements of the jewellery, including international exhibitions in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah, and Kuwait. During an exhibition in Sharjah, two diamond bangles were stolen, valued at Rs. 15,51,205. The complainant promptly informed the insurer and filed a claim, supported by a police complaint. Despite submitting all required documents, the insurer denied the claim, citing the absence of CCTV footage. Subsequent attempts by the complainant, including correspondence and a legal notice, failed to persuade the insurer to process the claim. Consequently, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission. The complainant sought relief, requesting the Commission to direct the insurer to process and disburse the claim amount of Rs. 15,51,205, with interest at 18% per annum and Rs. 5,00,000 for harassment.

Contentions of the Insurer

The insurer contested the case and raised a preliminary objection regarding the complaint's maintainability. The insurer argued that the complaint was time-barred as the claim had been repudiated and exceeded the statutory limit under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It was further contended that the complainant failed to provide CCTV footage of the venue, which breached the policy's terms and conditions.

Observations by the State Commission

The State Commission observed that the main issue before it was whether the present complaint, filed against the insurer, fell within the limitation period as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to Section 24A, complaints must be lodged within two years from the date of the cause of action unless sufficient reasons are presented and recorded for condoning the delay. It was highlighted that no complaint shall be entertained beyond the limitation period by the consumer for a unless the reason for the delay is record. Upon review, the commission found that the insurer had repudiated the claim, marking the commencement of the cause of action. However, the complaint was filed beyond the stipulated two-year period and without any application for delay submitted to the commission. Therefore, the commission concluded that the complaint was time-barred and dismissed it without costs.

Case Title: M/S Dialmaz Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

Case Number: C.C. No. 295/2016