Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 08/6/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.41/2009 Munni General Stores, Mahad through Smt.Rafiya Nazir Havaldar v/s.The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigad at Alibag. It is a claim related to Shop Keepers’ Insurance policy and damage caused due to flood of 25th and 26th July, 2005. The claim was settled and the amount was paid by the Insurance company to the complainant of Rs.7664/- on 31/1/2006, after appellant/complainant signed the discharge voucher acknowledging full satisfaction of the insurance claim. According to appellant/ complainant she had accepted that amount under protest. She filed the consumer complaint on 30/3/2009. Separate application for condonation of delay also appears to have been filed subsequent to filing of the consumer complaint. In fact, in consumer complaint it is alleged that cause of action is continuous and, therefore, consumer complaint filed is within limitation. Forum below after hearing both the parties felt that consumer complaint is barred by limitation and also further held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance company and rejected the consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved thereby, original complainant preferred this appeal. As far as cause of action is concerned, time starts knocking from the date of event i.e.25th and 26th July, 2005. For this purpose, we wish to make a reference to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. v/s. National Insurance Co. and another in Civil Appeal no.4962 of 2002 decided on 10/07/2009 : MANU/SC/1165/2009. Though not in the beginning but later on, it appears, the application for condonation of delay was filed. Mere perusal of the delay application which is not even supported by an affidavit, shows that period of alleged delay is not at all stated and in absence thereof there arise no question to explain the delay. It is only stated that she being a woman, she was unaware of the legal proceedings and, therefore, delay should be condoned. It may be mentioned herein that she is a shop keeper and runs a business. Under the circumstances, no reason reflects was given much less, satisfactory reason is shown to condone the delay. Forum below rightly held that the consumer complaint is barred by limitation and we are in agreement with it. Though appellant/complainant alleged that the amount which was offered and received by her from the Insurance company towards the full satisfaction of the insurance claim, was received by her under protest, she failed to substantiate the same. Documents speak otherwise. Offer of settlement of the insurance claim made in a letter dated 18/1/2006 specifically mentions that claim for the amount of Rs.7664/- was sanctioned by the Insurance company, discharge voucher was attached with it and it should be returned duly signed on revenue stamp paper and to obtain signature of the complainant on the back. After complying the same only the amount was paid to the complainant. Discharge voucher also specifically acknowledged the fact that said amount was paid in full satisfaction and discharge of the insurance claim. Therefore, forum below rightly further held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent . We concur with the said finding. Thus, finding appeal devoid of any substance, we pass following order:- ORDER Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. |
