Per Hon’ble Mrs.Usha S. Thakare – Presiding Judicial Member
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld.South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Misc.Application No.57/2010 in Complaint Case no.SMF/MUM/99/2010 on 22.11.2010, original Complainant has preferred the present appeal.
2. By the order under challenge the Ld.District Forum was pleased to dismiss the delay condonation application filed by the Complainant and therefore, the complaint case filed by the Complainant was not survived.
3. We have heard Ld.Counsel Mr.U.B. Wavikar for the Appellant and Ld.Counsel Mr.Nikhil Mehta, for the Respondent.
4. Ld.District Forum while rejecting the delay condonation application observed that Opponent has repudiated the claim in the month of March, 2006, preferred in respect of accidental death of Mr.Sanjay Suresh Pardhe.
5. It is urged on behalf of the Complainant that the complaint is filed for grant of compensation of `1,00,000/- on account of accidental death of his son – Sanjay Suresh Pardhe who died on 04.11.2005. He had submitted the claim through proper channel to the Opponent with relevant documents within a period of limitation of agricultural accident policy. The Opponent did not bother to pay amount of compensation under agricultural accident insurance policy in spite of repeated requests. His claim was neither rejected nor accepted, therefore, the complaint was filed and as an abundant precaution application for condonation of delay was moved.
6. During the course of arguments Ld.Counsel Mr.Wavikar has placed reliance on ruling of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Lakshmi Bai & Ors.V/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in III (2011) CPJ 507 (NC), in which it is observed while discussing the insurance claim for protection of a person below poverty line that, “Until payment of sum assured, it remains a case of continuous cause of action. Remedy under Act cannot be barred on the ground that jurisdiction of Fora was not invoked within two years from date of death in capacitation. Case remanded to District Fora for reconsideration.”
7. Ld.Counsel for the Complainant/Appellant urged that non-settlement of insurance claim without any tangible reason constitutes gross deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. The Consumer/Complainant, who is a farmer should not suffer due to act of the Opponent Insurance Company. Therefore, due to abundant precaution delay condonation application is filed which is wrongly dismissed by Ld.District Forum. To avoid injustice the appeal may be allowed.
8. Observation of the Hon’ble National Commission in case cited, supra, is squarely applicable to the case in hand because there is a continuous cause of action. Sufficient grounds are led down by the complainant to condone the delay. Delay, if any, is here condoned. The complaint is required to be entertained and dealt with as per law. As a result the appeal deserves to be allowed. It is a fit case to be remanded back. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.
(ii) Oder passed by the District Forum in Misc.Application No. 57/2010 is hereby set aside. In place of it, following order is substituted:
“Misc.Application No.57/2010 is allowed. Delay is condoned”.
(iii) Similarly order passed in Complaint No.SMF/MUM/99/2010 is also set aside.
(iv) Complaint No. SMF/MUM/99/2010 is remitted back to the District Forum for decision on merit.
(v) Both parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 07/01/2014.
(vi) The District Forum is directed to decide the Complaint Case NoSMF/MUM/99/2010 as early as possible within a period of 90 days.
Pronounced on 20th November, 2013.
