IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 108/10 DATED 26.05.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Sri. D. Nanjegowda S/o Doddegowda R/at Door No.15/1, Nagamangala Town, Mandya District.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. J.M.A, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office No.846, New Kantharaj Urs Road, Above Krishna Bekari, Akshay Bandar Junction, Kuvempunagar, Mysore. <br /> (By Sri. K.L.S, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 30.03.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 20.04.2010<br /> Date of order : 26.05.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 6 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.71,731/-, the damages caused to the car in the accident, which was insured with opposite party.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party in the version amongst other facts has contended that, the complainant has not followed the procedure and no Claim Form was submitted and as such, there is no deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 3. For both the parties affidavits are filed and certain documents are produced. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, we have to consider whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 5. For the following reasons, our finding is in negative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Certain facts are admitted and the same need not be narrated in detail.<br /> 7. Before entering into the merits of the claim, the contention raised by the opposite party shall have to be decided. The opposite party has contended that, no claim was made as per the procedure by submitting the Claim Form and as such, there is no deficiency. Consequently, there is no cause of action for the complaint.<br /> <br /> 8. Though the complainant has alleged that necessary documents were furnished to the opposite party and notice was sent, it is not alleged that, as per the procedure, claim was made submitting Claim Form. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant did not dispute the contention of the opposite party that, no Claim Form was submitted. Hence, one fact is clear that, no Claim Form was submitted by the complainant to the opposite party. As rightly argued for the opposite party unless and until the claim is repudiated, there being no cause of action, the complaint is not maintainable. Hence, without entering into the merits of the claim, for non-submission of the Claim Form, the complaint is not maintainable and on this ground, it is liable to be dismissed. However, we would like to make an observation that, the complainant is at liberty to make claim in accordance with law. Accordingly, following order.<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 26th May 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />