FA.No.534/2008 against CC.No.376/2007 District Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Between-

The National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Divisional Office, 3^rd Floor, Somajiguda,

Rep. by its Branch Manager, Hyderabad.

…Appellant/O.P.No.1.

And

1.Vaka Jayalakshmi W/o.late Udaya Kumar,

   Age - 44 yrs. Hindu, Occ- Employee,

2.Vaka Ravi Teja, S/o.late Udaya Kumar,

   Age - 20 yrs. Hindu, Occ- Student.

3.Vaka Jayanthi S/o.late Udaya Kumar,

   Age - 17 yrs. Hindu, Occ- Studet.

R.3 is minor.  Hence he is represented by his mother and next

friend Vaka Jayalakshmi, R.1.

All are residents of Lawyerpet, Ongole, D.No.7-9-2(A),

C/o.G.Srinvias Rao, Ongole.

…Respondents/Complainants.

4.The Divisional Electrical Engineer,

   Operation Division, Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

   Ongole.

…R.4/O.P.No.2.

Counsel for the Appellant                         Mr.Kota Subba Rao.   

Counsel for the Respondents                  -  Admission stage.  

QUORUM- SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT,

  AND

SRI G.BHOOPATHY REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.

FRI DAY, THE  ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT,

Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Inchage President)

------- 

            Heard.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole, dated 28.01.2008 in CC.No.376/2007, the 1^st opposite party preferred this appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The facts of the complaint in brief are that the 1^st complainant’s husband, Vaka Udaya Kumar, was working as a Lineman with the 2^nd opposite party.  He died in an accident.  After his death, 1^st complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for settlement of Family Group Insurance amount, and the 2^nd opposite party duly contacted the 1^st opposite party for settlement of the claim.  The 2^nd opposite party also requested the 1^st opposite party to send the claim form at an early date for necessary action.  When, the 1^st complainant visited the office of 2^nd opposite party, she was told that they have been corresponding with opposite party No.1 and that the claim would be settled in due course of time.  Having lost faith in their promise, the complainant approached the District Forum seeking appropriate relief.

O.P.No.1 filed counter stating that as per condition No.1 of the policy, the insured shall forthwith give notice to the company upon happening of an event and as per condition No.2 of the policy, satisfactory proof shall be furnished.  It is further stated that in the instant case neither complainants nor O.P.No.2 informed this opposite party about the death of the insured and the claim, which was submitted 270 days after the alleged accident, cannot be considered. 

O.P.No.2 filed counter stating that though they had forwarded the documents for taking necessary action, O.P.No.1 failed to send the claim form to the complainants.  It is further stated that the deceased by name V.Udaya Kumar worked as a Lineman in the office of Assistant Engineer, Operation, Kothapatnam and he died in a motor accident on 28.03.2004 near Chinaganjam and O.P.No.1 is the insurer.  There is no deficiency in service on their behalf.

Based on the pleadings put forth by both parties and the documentary evidence i.e. Exs.A.1 to A.6 and B.1 to B.3, District Forum allowed the complaint directing O.P.No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 9Percent per annum from 02.12.2004 till the date of realization.  Claim against O.P.No.2 was dismissed. 

Aggrieved by the said order, O.P.No.1 preferred this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was a delay of 270 days in submitting the claim which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and for this delay even O.P.No.2 i.e. the Electricity Department ought to have been made liable.  He further contended that the complaint is barred by limitation as the claim was repudiated on 29.12.2004 whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2007. 

The District Forum relied on the citation reported in 1998, SAR, (Civil), 739 Supreme Court, (N.Balakrishna Vs. M.Krishnamurthy) wherein it was held that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of Court.  Acceptability of the explanation for the delay is the only criteria.  We agree with the finding of the District Forum that the cause of action arose from the date of rejection, and thereafter the 1^st complainant approached the opposite parties several times for settlement and she was given assurance that the claim would be settled, and therefore, could not approach the Forum at an early date.  We rely on the judgment of the National Commission in 2000 NCJ (NC) 406 wherein it was held by the National Commission that “merely because the claim is not made within the stipulated period, it is not void”.   Therefore, we no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.                    

 This appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.  However, we grant eight weeks time for the appellant to comply with the order of the District Forum.  The penalty proceedings shall stand suspended for eight weeks from the date of this order.    

INCHARGE PRESIDENT               MALE MEMBER             

Dt-11.04.2008.

Vvr.