Case Title: M/S. Yash Agencies Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr
Case Number: F. A. No. 1130/2016
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), overseen by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, has dismissed an appeal against New India Assurance. The NCDRC ruled that insurance claims must be lodged within the specified time frame, and simply corresponding with the insurer does not extend this period.
The case involves a wholesale trader of Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), who had taken out a Special Fire Special Policy (SFSP) worth Rs. 60 lakh from New India Assurance for his goods stored in a warehouse. After a fire broke out at the premises, the trader informed the insurer the next day and filed a claim for Rs. 55 lakh. Despite providing all requested information, the claim remained unsettled for over two years, with the insurer continuously asking for additional documents.
The insurance company’s surveyor conducted a preliminary inspection, estimating the loss at Rs. 10 lakh on a net salvage basis. It was noted that the claimant was willing to settle for Rs. 9,34,838 in full, but the claim was never settled. The State Commission was approached, which determined that even though the complainant was a consumer as per section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, the complaint was lodged after the limitation period. The State Commission also noted that the insurer had closed the claim and further communication did not extend the limitation period.
New India Assurance argued that the complaint was barred due to being filed over two years after the incident. The insurer stated that the surveyor had advised the complainant to prepare a detailed stock list, but the complainant failed to comply in a timely manner. It was also noted that despite several reminders, the complainer did not separate the good items from the damaged ones. The complainer’s lack of cooperation and failure to provide necessary documents within 15 days led to the closure of the claim.
The NCDRC upheld the State Commission’s decision, citing that it was based on factual findings and legal principles regarding the delay in filing the complaint. The complainant was unable to provide evidence to contradict the finding that the complaint was time-barred and argued that the ongoing correspondence with the insurer constituted a continuing cause of action.
The NCDRC referred to the case of Vandan Pareshkumar Manghita vs Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. to reinforce that mere correspondence does not extend the limitation period. The Commission also cited State Bank of India vs. B S Agriculture Industries (I), emphasizing the importance of the limitation period under Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act.
The NCDRC dismissed the appeal and upheld the State Commission’s order, reiterating the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period for filing a complaint. This decision underscores the need for consumers to be prompt in their actions and aware of their responsibilities when filing insurance claims. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of their claims, regardless of their merits.
