Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose complaint was rejected by the forum below on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation and no sufficient ground had been mentioned or made out in condonation of delay application filed along with the complaint.  Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Thane, in consumer complaint no.118/2009, original complainant has come up in appeal.

We heard Advocate Mr.S.D.Tigde for the appellant and Mr.S.R.Singh-Advocate for the respondent/Insurance company.

A few facts needs to be mentioned to decide this appeal. Appellant had taken insurance cover for his vehicle no.MH-43-2456 from O.P.-Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.  When insurance cover was in force, on 08/08/2005, there was an accident to his vehicle and in the said accident, he suffered fracture of left leg.  He was immediately admitted to NMMC Hospital and in the hospital his left leg was amputed by performing an operation.  On 23/4/2009 he lodged claim with the Insurance company and Insurance company did not send any reply.  They did not take cognizance of the claim lodged by the complainant and, therefore, according to appellant, he suffered mental and physical harassment and, therefore, he filed consumer complaint with the prayer that he should be given compensation of `1 lakh since he lost one leg in amputation on account of accident.  Complainant claimed `50,000/- for mental harassment besides cost of the proceedings.

Forum below after hearing both the counsels, opined that the complainant had met with an accident on 08/8/2005 and the policy was subject to terms and conditions.   Immediately complainant was supposed to give intimation of the accident to the Insurance company.  However, in the instant case, complainant gave intimation of accident as late as on 23/4/2009 that is after 3½ years.  In the condonation of delay application filed along with the complaint they have not given just and sufficient cause and forum below was of the view that O.P. had rightly rejected the insurance claim since he has lodged insurance claim after a lapse of so many years.  In fact he had lodged claim after 3½ years. Therefore, according to forum below, O.P. was not guilty of any deficiency in service and, as such, forum below was pleased to dismiss the complaint.  Aggrieved by this dismissal, original complainant has filed this appeal.

We are finding that there is no substance in appeal.  In the written statement, Insurance company has rightly pleaded that claim preferred by the complainant is time barred as cause of action arose on the date of accident that is on 08/08/2005 and complaint has been filed on 29/6/2009 that is after the four years from the occurrence. Insurance company also pleaded that first intimation was given by the complainant to the O.P.-Insurance company for the first time on 23/4/2009 that is after 3½ years and, therefore, such claim was time barred in law.  O.P. pleaded that claim is deemed to be abandoned or waived under the terms of the policy. Acting upon this pleading, forum below was pleased to dismiss the complaint and we are finding that the order passed by the forum below is just and proper and it is sustainable in law.  Intimation of personal accident has to be made immediately to the Insurance company and delayed intimation after about 3½ years is not contemplated under the policy issued by O.P./Insurance company and, therefore, on that ground forum below appears to have rightly dismissed the complaint.  We are finding no substance in the appeal. Hence, we pass following order :-

                                                          ORDER

Appeal is summarily dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.