YASH AGENCIES Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') challenges the order dtd. 8/8/2016 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (in short, 'the State Commission') in CC no. 04 of 2016 dismissing the complaint as being barred by limitation. The complainant/ appellant is before this Commission praying for setting aside the order of the State Commission and allowing the appeal.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the complainant/ appellant who was a Wholesale Trader of FMCG goods had obtained a Special Fire Special Policy (SFSP) for Rs.60.00 lakh for the period 15/9/2011 to 14/9/2012 in respect of his goods stocked in the godown of the appellant. Following a fire on the insured premises on 10/2/2012, intimation of which was given to the Police and the Fire Brigade the same day, the respondent was informed the next day. A claim for Rs.55.00 lakh under the said insurance policy was filed. According to the appellant, despite providing all the information sought by the surveyor appointed by the respondent, the claim was not finalised for nearly 2 ' years and further documents were sought on 21/7/2014. Surveyor S K Kansal had visited the site and conducted a preliminary inspection. However, despite the assessment of loss of Rs.10.00 lakh on net salvage basis, as per the Surveyor's Report dtd. 3/12/2012, and also mentioning that the complainant was agreeable to settle the claim for Rs.9,34,838.00 in full and final satisfaction, the claim had not been settled. State Commission was approached by the appellant in CC no. 04/ 2016 which held that although the appellant/ complainant was a 'consumer' under Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Act, the fact that the respondent had closed the claim of the appellant vide letter dtd. 28/8/2012 whereafter the appellant had entered into correspondence with the respondent, the fact of such correspondence did not amount to extending the period of limitation. It was accordingly held that mere sending a letter under the RTI Act does not give rise to a fresh cause of action and the submissions of representation of letters to OP no.1/ respondent does not arrest the time. It was noted that the letter was sent on 17/4/2015 after a period of 2 years and the complaint itself had been filed on 6/2/2016 after two years of the cause of the action had accrued.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused material on records carefully.