Per Smt T. Suneetha, Member:-
This complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, Seeking directions on opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,32,000/- towards damages and interest @ 24% from the date of accident till the date of filing the complaint amounting to Rs.1,48,480/-, towards compensation for mental agony Rs.10,000/- and also to pay the costs of the complaint.
2. In brief the averments of the complaint are here under:
The complainant is being the owner of the vehicle/lorry bearing No. AP 7Y 0115 insured the vehicle under No. 550400/31/06/6300004747 valid from on 08-12-2006 till the midnight of 07-12-2007. The complainant paid all the insurance premiums without fail.
On 12-08-2007 the subject vehicle was damaged in an accident took place at Murthy Nagar, Bapatla, due to the negligent driving of the driver of the loaded tractor bearing No.AP 05 N 4613 as a result the vehicle was turtle. The case was registered under crime No.53 of 2007 U/s.337 of I.P.C. The Surveyor of the opposite parties estimated the cost of the damage @ Rs.2,32,000/-. The opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant through a letter dated 24-04-08 with false allegations.
According to the terms of the policy the opposite parties has liability to pay the compensation for the damages caused to the insured vehicle of the complainant. Therefore, there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus the complaint.
3. Opposite parties filed its version which is in brief as follows.
The opposite parties are liable to the claim of the policy holders / insured subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy specifically specified its terms and conditions with regard to the persons or classes of the persons entitled to drive the vehicle, the use of the vehicle within permit conditions and the liability of the insurance company.
As seen from the documents Nos. 3 & 8 filed by the complainant, the opposite parties issued policy for carrying goods only and not to carry unauthorized persons. The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the permit and policy at the cost of human lives as such it repudiated the claim of the complainant rightly.
U/s.24 A of Consumer Protection Act, this complaint is barred by time and delay is not at all explained. The Hon’ble Forum may decide this point primarily before going into the merits of the case. Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. The complainant and opposite parties filed their respective affidavits. Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
5. Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of Service and to
what relief the complainant is entitled to?
6. POINT NO.1:- The opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on 24-04-2008. The complainant filed the complaint in the Forum on 22-04-10 under S.R. No.1068. The registry returned the complaint on two occasions ie; on 24-04-2010 and on 01-10-11 to the complainant to comply the following objections required by the registry :
1. Proof affidavit of the complainant shall be filed.
2. Sufficient court fee by way of D.D./IPO on total value of claim shall be
annexed.
3. List of documents have not been filed.
4. Three more sets of documents with complaint copies shall be filed.
5. The opposite party is carrying business at Hyderabad. Explain how this
Forum got territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint U/s.11(2) of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
The complainant represented the complaint on 29-09-11 and filed a petition under I.A.No. 125/12 to condone the delay of 508 days.
The registry took valid objections but the complainant delayed complying those objections by 508 days. The complainant in the affidavit filed in IA 125/2012 contended as follows :
“Having smelt the filing of OP, the respondent authorities approached me to settle the matter amicably. According to the believable words of the opposite party, I could not make any further actions in the said opposite party. Yesterday I met the respondent officials and questioned and demanded him for the payment of the compensation towards damages of my vehicle for which the respondent gave evasive replies and thus the respondent wantonly and intentionally cheated me .Immediately I met my advocate …..Hence I am advised to file this application”.
The complainant also filed a memo on 30-03-2012 which reads as below:
“It is submitted that the complainant represented the complaint by complying the objections with a delay of 508 days in representing the complaint due to misunderstandings between the opposite parties and the complainant about the settlement of claim. Thus complainant representing that there is no willful default on behalf of the complainant. Hence it may be numbered Rule 9 sub clause (5) of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 subject to limitation. Hence this Memo”
In view of the said memo and that the truth or otherwise of the reasons for the delay cannot be gone into at that stage the registry registered the complainant subject to limitation as laid under Regulation 9 (5) of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
The said explanation is devoid of merit as the opposite party repudiated the claim on 24-04-08. Hence the explanation is coined for the purpose of filing IA 125/12. IA 125/2012 even if treated as are filed U/s.24A of Consumer Protection Act, the explanation is not reasonable and did not stand to legal scrutiny. Hence, the complaint hopelessly barred by time. Even otherwise also the order passed by Forum on 13-03-2012 became final as not carried either by way of appeal or revision.
In the circumstances, the Forum opines not to condone delay because, though the complaint was filed in the Forum within 2 years time from the date of repudiation, the complainant delayed for 508 days to comply the objections required by the registry as against prescribed time of 15 days as per the Rule 9 clause2 of Consumer Regulations, 2005. Thus the complaint is barred by limitation.
7. POINT NO.2:- Since the complaint is barred by limitation the Forum need not answer this point.
8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 15th day of March, 2013.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 | 24-04-08 | Xerox copy of repudiation letter. |
A2 | 05-01-07 | Xerox copy of certificate of registration. |
A3 | 08-12-06 | Xerox copy of policy bond opposite parties |
A4 | 12-08-07 | Xerox copy of FIR in Cr.No.53 of 2007 of Bapatla Rural P.S. |
A5 | - | Xerox copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.53 of 2007. |
A6 | 18-08-07 | Xerox copy of Surveyor Report. |
A7 | 23-11-07 | Xerox copy of Final report given by the insurance Surveyor. |
A8 | 05-01-07 | Xerox copy of permit given by he R.T.A. |
For opposite parties: - NIL
PRESIDENT
NB: The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.
