Date of Filing : 14.07.2021
Date of Disposal : 20.07.2021
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 20th JULY 2021
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH : PRESIDENT
Mr KRISHNAMURTHY B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.517/2021
Mr Suresh Babu E
S/o Eshwar Naik
Aged about 33 years
R/o No.72, 6th Cross 2nd Main
3rd Block, D Group Layout
Herohalli, Vigro Nagar Post
Bengaluru- 560 091
(By Mr.A.Manjunathappa) Appellant
-Versus-
1. Corporate Office
ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.,
ICICI Lombard House No.414
Veerasavarkar Marg
Near Siddhivinayaka Temple
Prabhadevi
Mumbai-400 030
2. ICICI Bank Tower
Flat NO.12, Financial District
Nanakram Guda
Gachibowli
Hyderabad-500 032 Respondents
-:ORDER:-
Mr KRISHNAMURTHY B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Complainant aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2021 in Consumer Complaint No.272/2021 passed by III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru.(for short District Commission and the parties as arrayed in the complaint).
2. Commission heard learned counsel for Appellant/Complainant and we perused the impugned order.
3. Impugned order is passed at the stage of admission, dismissing the complaint filed by Mr.Suesh Babu as bared by limitation. Even this Commission is now on Admission of this Appeal examined the impugned order and to proceed to go in to the matter as to consider the matter in accordance with law.
4. The facts of this case would be: As the brother of complainant Mr.Ramesh Babu, who at the relevant time was working as General Surgeon in Apollo Corporate Hospital, Bangalore and he on 12.05.2013 received a message from his native place Jambaiahnahatti Village of Challakere Taluk in Chitradurga District about death of his uncle. Accordingly he left Bengaluru along with his elder sister Dr.Savitha Rani and his mother Sulochana Bai in New Ford Figo Titanium Car bearing No.KA-02-MG-9419 and while
on the way reached the outskirts of Challekere Town one Truck bearing No. KA-28-B-1042 came from opposite side clashed against the car in which Dr.Ramesh Babu was on wheel as a driver resulting thereby he, his sister and mother succumbed on the spot itself. This was occurred at about 17.45 pm on 12.05.2013. In this regard, charge sheet is also submitted against the driver of the Truck in CC No. 759/2013 which is placed before the Commission below.
5. Let us come to the consumer complaint filed by one of the legal heir of deceased Ramesh Babu, who insured the new car with OPs/Respondents Company under package policy for the period from 09.11.2012 to 08.11.2013. The date of accident as stated by the Appellant/Complainant found from the police papers, is 12.05.0213 which is fall well within the period of insurance in respect of vehicle bearing No.KA-02-MG-9419. In order to show that car was registered in the name of Dr. Ramesh Babu, smart copy of RC and copy of the policy were placed before the Commission below.
6. According to the Appellant, the Respondent/OP has collected premium and also for own damage to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs which they would pay for personal injury to the owner of the car. He purchased the said car for a sum of Rs.7,58,000/- and the IDV as found in policy is Rs.7,48,000/-. Copy of the driving license held by Dr.Ramesh Babu also produced. OPs have collected Rs.14,234/- towards total premium amount. The vehicle IDV could be seen at Rs.5,83,456/-. The policy was issued on 20.11.2012. The period of insurance was commencing from 09.11.2012 to 08.11.2013. The car was manufactured during 2012. Basic own damage premium was also collected.
7. We carefully examined the Appeal Memo and order of the Commission below from which could not find submission of claim to the OPs and their denial, except filing a copy of legal notice dated 22.02.2021, calling upon the OPs to pay a suitable compensation as such we are of view that the District Commission was rightly dismissed the complaint, since the date of issuance of legal notice cannot be considered as the date of starting of limitation. In this regard, we did not find any document placed by the complainant either before Commission below or along with Appeal Memo as to the claim made to OP before rising consumer complaint explaining as to the delay in order to fit the case within the provision of CP Act 1986. In this regard, it is to be noted herein limitation period for making insurance or reinsurance claim is decided by the terms of the relevant policy. The terms and conditions enumerated in the policy in question are bound by the insured and insurer. Where no time period is prescribed, a three years limitation applies. In general, period of limitation commencing on the date of the event triggering the claim or from the date, the claimant became aware of the insured event. Here in this case, the complainant firstly failed to make a claim to the OPs and secondly failed to explain to the OPs when he became aware of the insured event. It is therefore, if such claim is not made to the OPs fulfilling the terms and conditions of the policy issued in the name of insured, filing complaint by invoke of the provisions of CP Act, 1986 before the Commission below has to be held premature.
8. Yes, it is right, Section 69 of CPA, provides for limitation period to admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. As already stated above, the complainant herein from the records which he has produced before the District Commission did not made a claim to the OPs and he did not explained when he became aware of the insured event. It is therefore, Commission below has rightly held that the date of issuance of legal notice cannot be considered as the date of cause of action to raise consumer complaint to save limitation.
9. In the above such conclusion, issue of legal notice by the complainant is rightly held not considered as cause of action to file complaint and rightly not admitted the complaint by the Commission below, which does not call for any interference in exercise of the powers vested under section 41 of CP Act, 2019.
10. Accordingly, dismissed the Appeal as not admitted.
11. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.
Lady Member Judicial Member President
*s
