Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/09/159

MR ATMARAM NAMDEO PATIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

S V GAVAND

19 Jul 2010

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/09/159
(Arisen out of Order Dated 03/01/2009 in Case No. 4/2008 of District Raigarh)
 
1. MR ATMARAM NAMDEO PATIL
AT ROADPALI PO NAVADA TAL PANVEL
RAIGAD
Maharastra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
ICICI BANK TOWERS BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA (E) MUMBAI 51
Maharastra
2. USL SHINRAI AUTOMOBILES LTD.,
35, DR. E. MOSES RD., WORLI, MUMBAI-18
3. ICICI BANK LTD.,
BHANDARKAR RD., PUNE (M.S.)
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENT
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:Ms.Anamika Motale,Advocate, Proxy for S V GAVAND, Advocate for for the Appellant 1
 
ORDER

Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President

          Heard Ms.Anamika A.Motale-Advocate h/f.Mr.S.V.Gavand-Advocate for the appellant.   None for respondent

This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Alibag in Misc.application no.4/2008 decided on 03/1/2009.  Complaint filed by the complainant has been rejected on the ground of delay.

Appellant/org.complainant is a contractor and supplier of building material and he has purchased the vehicle by taking loan from respondent no.3 and has purchased the said vehicle from respondent no.2 and said vehicle was insured with respondent no.1.  Period of insurance was 14/3/2005 to 13/3/2006.  Vehicle was purchased for Rs.11,00,637.48.  Said policy was comprehensive policy.  On 26/7/2005 there was heavy rain and vehicle was damaged in the flood.  Since respondents have not paid any amount in spite of notice issued, the complaint has been filed. 

In filing this complaint there was a delay of more than one year and, therefore, complainant has filed an application under section 24-A(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the purpose of condonation of delay.  According to complainant/appellant he has given two notices namely notice dated 15/1/2006 and 20/12/2006 to the opponents/respondents.  He states that the negotiations were going on in respect of settlement.  However, settlement has not taken place.  It is an admitted position on record that opponents have not given any reply to the said notices.  There is nothing on record to show that any negotiation between the parties was going on.  Negotiation between the parties does not extend the period of limitation unless there is admission at any point of time in respect of the liability.  In the present matter, admittedly complaint was time barred and the reasons given for condonation of delay are not sufficient reasons and, therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.  No interference is called for.  Hence the order:-

                                                ORDER

Appeal stands rejected.  

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

 

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase]
PRESIDENT
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
Judicial Member
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.