DOF11/5/2010 DOO.27/8 /2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 27th day of August 2010 CC.128/2010 P.P.Shameem, Panambra House, Parambayi, Pathiriyad, Mambaram. Complainant National Insurance co. Ltd., Keyi’s shopping Complex, Narangapuram, Thalassery. Opposite party O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President Heard. The case of the complainant is that his motor cycle was stolen on 21.6.07. Kannur town police registered a crime 311/07. Duly filled claim form submitted to Insurances Company. They did not respond to the claim application but asked t produce police report. The police referred the crime on 12.2.08. After that he submitted refer report to opposite party. Thereafter complainant approached opposite party several times but they did not take any action. Opposite party filed version raising the question of maintainability. Opposite party contended that the above complaint is not maintainable since the same is barred by limitation. The vehicle was stolen on 21.6.07. So the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 21/6/2009. The complaint was filed on 10.5.2010. Then there is an inordinate delay of 10 months and 9 days. More over opposite arty also contended that there is no cause of action for filing this complaint since there is no cogent proof apart from the refer report based on an FIR. Complainant had never approached the opposite party with the claim earlier or on 26.5.08 to give the opposite party an opportunity to process the claim allows or repudiate. Complainant alleges that he had submitted the duly filled claim form before the opposite party. But he has not written the date when he submitted the claim form. Complainant also stated that he had supplied all the documents that are necessary for considering the claim. But he ha snot mentioned what are those documents. None of the documents produced before the Forum will not make assure that complainant had submitted a claim before the insurance company opposite parry. Even the copy of the duly filled claims form has not been produced. Complainant alleges that the denial of the claim by the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Such document of denial of claim also has not been produced. The case of the opposite party is that the complainant had never approached the opposite party to give the opposite party an opportunity to process the claim, allow the claim or repudiate the claim. It can be seen that complainant has not produced a single piece of paper to show that he has submitted claim before opposite party. Under such circumstances there is substance in the contention of opposite party that there arose no cause of action against opposite party. Ongoing through the available documents and on detailed hearing of counsel, we are of considered opinion that there is no cause of action against opposite party. It cannot be ignored that the complainant has not even sent a notice to opposite party. Hence it is found that there is no cause of action. In the result, the complaint is not maintainable since there is no cause of action and in consequence of which the complaint stands dismissed. No cost. Sd/- President Sd/- Member Sd/-Member /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
