::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.86/2015.
Date of filing: 01.12.2015.
Date of disposal: 31.03.2018.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: 1. Annareddy S/o Bommareddy,Chamle,
Age: 53 years, Occ: Private Work,
R/o Village Mudbi Tq: Basavakalyan Dist: Bidar.
(By Sri. P.M.Deshpande, Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company
Limited (for Bidar And Gulbarga)
1-45 Kothari Complex,
Court Road, Gulbarga-585102.
(By.Sri. Satish Kulkarni, Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
This case is by the complainant/ Insured against the Insurer/O.P. alleging deficiency of service u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
The sum total of the complaint is as follows:-
2. That, the complainant is the owner of the Lorry, bearing No.KA-39-5069 for which he had obtained Insurance from the opponent by paying regular premium. The Insurance certificate was bearing policy No.3003/523/2229/01/000 (Copy as Annexure-c) and was valid from 25.08.2008 to 24.08.2009. The I.D. value of the Lorry is reflected as Rs.9,05,400/- in the insurance certificate, contrary to the claim of Rs.11,00,000/- of the complainant. It is further the say of the complainant that, he had spent Rs.2,13,000/- towards the body building.
3. That, said Lorry had met with an accident and was totally damaged on 28.01.2009, when the policy was in force and was totally damaged. A claim was lodged with the Gulbarga office of the opponent which is not yet settled.
4. The complainant further avers that, he had made several representations to the opponent and got issued notice on 08.02.2010. (annexure-J) and also has informed the financier Bank i.e. I.C.I.I. Bank Limited inspite of which the Financier had demanded repayment of loans vide a letter date: 12.12.2011. The complainant apprised the O.P. about the loan demand. The financier once again demanded repayment of loan vide letters date: 03.06.2012 and 24.07.2012 and the complainant approached the Nodal Officer of I.C.I.C.I Bank and described his grievances on 13.07.2012.
5. Later, on 13.12.2012, the complainant received intimation from the Bank that, as per the interaction of the Nodal Officer with the opponent, a new fact had emerged, which was, the opponent has processed the claim No. MOTO 1010322 under Motor Policy No.3003/52372229/01/000 and further that, on 17.09.2009, a letter was sent by the opponent through M/s Professional Courier. The complainant Vouches that, no such courier service exists in his village Mudbi and to that, effect, he has produced a certificate from the concerned Panchayath Development officer (Annexure-24).
6. The complainant further claims that, in continuation, he has been sending letters to the opponent as well as the financier Bank
date: 22.01.2013 and 18.03.2013 and after wards as well. The complainant claims that, the last cause of action had arose on 12.03.2015 (sic) and therefore he is before the forum, the claim, not having been settled. The complaint is accompanied by an I. A. u/s 24-A praying condo nation on of delay.
7. The opponents entering appearance have submitted belated version, in which it is claimed that, the accident occurred on 28.01.2009 and the O.P. called upon the complainant to provide documents proving the accident on 17.09.2009. It is further stated that, the limitation to file the complaint has expired on 27.01.2011 and hence the present complaint filed on 26.11.2015 is barred by limitation, to be dismissed on that count. It is further stated that, the delay condo nation application is vague, designed to convince the court about continuous cause of action, even the days of delay is not mentioned in the application. It is also claimed that, the opponent has promptly responded to the claim of the complainant vide its’ letter date: 17.9.2009 asking production of documents and on the failure of the later to furnish the same, the claim was closed. The present complaint is filed after six years of the arousal of last cause of action, liable to be dismissed.
8. It is further the case of the opponent that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to consider the complaint as the opponent has no branch at Bidar.
9. Not disputing the nativity of the complainant or his owner ship of vehicle No.KA-39-5069, the opponent vide Para-5 of the versions has brought to our notice that, contrary to the claim of the complainant about registration of Police case, subsequent to the accident on 28.01.2009, the complainant has o where stated regarding the place, time and manner as to how the accident occurred and in which Police station the case was registered. No F.I.R. or spot panchanama has been produced with the complaint and the complainant is playing hide and seek.
10. It is further stated that, prior t the letter date: 17.09.2009 another letter was sent to the complainant calling upon him to furnish the copy of F.I.R. and Driving license particulars, which was not complied and hence the claim was closed during October, 2009.
11. (N.B. we observe, the complainant himself has produced the letter date: 05.06.2009 as Annexure-A of the complaint).
It is further contended by the opponent that, to prove the cost of damages to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/-, the complainant has not produced any inspection report of Motor vehicle Inspector, Panchanama, estimate from the Authorized service centre and that, the vehicle has not suffered any damage and his claim was imaginary. The captioned estimate of f M/s Sundaram Motors does not refer to the Vehicle under reference. The document is bogus, the complainant is playing fraud on the forum and the opponent and heavy penalty is to be imposed on him.
12. On the above said grounds the opponent seeks dismissal of the case.
13. Bothe sides have produced documents, evidence affidavits and written arguments.
Considering the rival contentions of the parties, we proceed to fix two preliminary points for consideration:-
- Is the case filed within time?
- Does the forum has the jurisdiction to consider the case?
Our answers to point No.1 & 2 are in negative owing to the following:-
:: REASONS ::
14. The complainant, running with hares and hunting with the hounds has feigned ignorance about receiving any communication from the opponents asking to produce relevant documents related to the alleged accident. His production of Annexure-A of the complaint belies his contention. Secondly, the document Annexure-c proves that, the transaction between the parties took place at Gulbarga, the complainant has not led evidence to the effect that, the opponent in any manner operates or conducts business at Bidar, which ousts the jurisdiction of this forum, as per section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for which the following:-
ORDER.
- The complaint is dismissed.
- For the reasons aforesaid, we dismiss the complaint lock, stock and barrel and impose a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) on the complainant, payable to the opponent for the frivolous complaint .
- Four weeks time granted to comply this order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 31st day of March 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure. A- Copy of the letter of opponent date: 05.06.2009
demanding F.I.R., Driving License and other
documents. - Annexure. B– Copy of National permit.
- Annexure. C– Copy of Insurance Certificate.
- Annexure. D—Copy of representation to circle Inspector of Police.
- Annexure. E– copy of claim Form.
- Annexure. F- Copy Police acknowledgement in form No.76-A.
- Annexure. G- Copy of consignment date: 26.01.2009.
- Annexure. H- Copy of quotation of Sundaram Motors date: Nil
(Pages containing Item No.1 to 48 missing). - Annexure. J- Office copy of legal notice date: 08.02.2010.
- Annexure. K- Original Courier receipt.
- Annexure. L- Copy of loan recall notice of the opponent.
- Annexure. M- Office copy of legal notice date: 23.02.2012.
- Annexure. N & P- Original Courier receipts.
- Annexure. Q- Reminder of the financier regarding overdue payment
date June 03.2012. - Annexure. R- Reminder of Financier regarding overdue payment
date July,24.2012. - Annexure. S- Copy of Police Complaint date: 11.04.2012 regarding
theft of parts. - Annexure. T- Copy of the letter of the Financier date November
13.2012. - Annexure. U- Office copy of legal notice date: 20.01.2013.
- Annexure. V & W- Courier receipts of above.
- Annexure. X- Office copy of reply legal notice date: 18.03.2018.
- Annexure. Y- Copy of notice of I.C.I.C.I Bank date: December
31.2013, regarding settlement of dues. - Annexure. Z- No objection Certificate of I.C.I.C.I. Bank date January
23.2014. - Annexure.Z.1- Office copy of legal notice date 20.03.2014 the O.P.
- Annexure.Z.2- Office copy of legal notice date: 12.03.2015 to the O.P.
- Annexure.Z.3- Courier receipt.
- Annexure.Z.4- Original certificate of Panchayath Development
officer date: 22.11.2016. - Annexure.Z.5- Original Certificate of President, Mudbi Gram
Panchayath.
Document produced by the Opponents.
- Annexure-R.1- Copy of the Letter Date: 07.03.2009 from the O.P. to
the complainant. - Annexure-R.2- Copy of Insurance Certificate.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Annareddy S/o Bommareddy (complainant).
Opponent No.1
- R.W.1- Sri Yankan Gouda Patil Authorised Officer of opponent.
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
