IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 24th day of October, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 24/2010 (Filed on 15.02.2010) Between: Abraham Varghese, Vellanolickal House, Vennikulam P.O., Mallappally, now residing at Poovakkalakizhakkethil- House, Anjilithanam P.O., Thiruvalla. (By Adv. Sunitha. K.K. .... Complainant. And: 1. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office, Changanassery. 2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. P.D. Varghese) .... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that he is the registered owner of a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-03N-8374 which is having a valid insurance policy of the opposite parties vide policy No. 100506/31/01/00001067. While so, on 20.10.2007 at about 9 a.m., while he was riding the said vehicle along with her daughter met with an accident at Kulathoormoozhi – Mundathanam road by dashing with an Ambassador car. Due to the accident, the complainant sustained fracture and other injuries. For the treatment, he had spent nearly ` 1,00,000 and also he had sustained 30% permanent disability due to the accident. The said accident occurred during the validity of the policy and the said policy is a package policy for ` 916 including ` 50 for P.A. coverage. Manimala Police registered a crime also for this accident. Subsequent to the accident and the treatment, the complainant approached the opposite parties and informed about the accident for getting compensation entitled to him under the said policy. That apart, a notice intimating the accident was also given to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties have not allowed any compensation to the complainant. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realisation of ` 1,00,000 entitled to the complainant as per the policy, as compensation along with 12% interest per annum for the said amount and the cost of this proceedings from the opposite parties. 3. The opposite parties filed their version with the following main contentions: The first contention of the opposite parties is that this complaint is barred by limitation as the accident was occurred on 20.10.2007 and this complaint was filed on 15.02.2010 i.e. after 2 years from the date of cause of action. The other contentions are the alleged accident was not intimated to the opposite parties within the statutory period, which is mandatory as per the policy conditions. In this case, the complainant did not approach the opposite parties seeking personal accident benefits instead they have directly approached this Forum. So the complaint is premature and is liable to be dismissed. The ownership of the vehicle and the policy is admitted by the opposite parties. This policy covers only death or permanent disability and the complainant in this case has not sustained any injuries for getting any amount under personal accident, which is evident from the averments in the complaint itself. Medical expenses are not liable to be paid by the opposite parties, as it is not envisaged under the policy. The complainant had issued an Advocate Notice to the first opposite party and a reply had been given. The complainant is not entitled to any reliefs claimed in the complaint for the reasons mentioned herein above. With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint as they have not committed any deficiency in service. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and the Divisional Manager of the opposite parties and Exts.A1 to A6 and Ext.B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 6. Point No.1 : This point is considered in the light of the contentions raised by the opposite parties that this complaint is barred by limitation. According to the opposite parties, the alleged accident was occurred on 20.10.2007 and this complaint was filed on 15.02.2010, which is after the expiry of 2 years from the date of accident. 7. On the basis of the above contentions, we have perused the materials on record and found that what the opposite parties have stated is correct. Moreover, Ext.A2, which is produced by the complainant, the reply letter of the opposite parties to the complainant’s Advocate Notice shows that the opposite parties clearly stated that they have already settled the claim of the complainant on 30.11.2007 for the accident repair works of the complainant’s vehicle which means and shows that they are not intending to admit the complainant’s claim for personal accident. If that be so, the complainant had the notice of repudiation during November 2007. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant had not challenged this aspect or adduced any evidence for disproving the contentions of the opposite parties regarding the question of limitation. In the circumstances, we find that this complaint is filed after 2 years from the date of accident and the date on which the cause of action had arised. Therefore, the opposite parties’ contention regarding the question of limitation is sustainable and hence we find that this complaint is barred by limitation and is not maintainable before this Forum as per Sec.24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act. 8. Point Nos.2 & 3: In the light of the findings in point No.1, these points are not considered. 9. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of October, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Package policy certificate. A2 : Reply notice dated 10.12.2009 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant’s Advocate. A3 : Photocopy of the First Information Report. A4 : Photocopy of the accident-cum-wound certificate. A5 : Photocopy of the discharge summary. A6 : Disability certificate issued by Medical Board, General Hospital, Pathanamthitta. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Policy copy with condition. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Abraham Varghese, Poovakkalakizhakkethil House, Anjilithanam P.O., Thiruvalla. (2) The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office, Changanassery. (3) The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Pathanamthitta. (4) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
