Karnataka

Bangalore 1st & Rural Additional

CC/744/2020

M/s Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

13 Oct 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE BENGALURU RURAL AND URBAN I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, I FLOOR, BMTC, B BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-27
 
Complaint Case No. CC/744/2020
( Date of Filing : 06 Oct 2020 )
 
1. M/s Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Bangalore Central Division, K. H. Road, Shantinagar, Bangalore-560027. Represented by its Divisional Controller.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. New India Assurance Company Limited
Represented by its Manager, Having its regional Office at XI-672100, 4th Floor, Tower Block, Unity Buildings, J. C. Road, Bangalore-560002.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. H.R.SRINIVAS, B.Sc. LL.B., PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sharavathi S.M.,B.A. L.L.B MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 13 Oct 2020
Final Order / Judgement

ORDER REGARDING MAINTAINABILITY

          Complainant being Karnataka State road Transport authority has filed this complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking reimbursement of Rs.8,06,640/- paid to LRs of deceased Siddappa, its driver, who died in the accident, along with interest at 18% p.a., from the OP and for other reliefs.

          On perusing the complaint it is found that the complainant has taken an insurance policy with OP in respect of a passenger vehicle bearing No.KA-01-F-9164 in respect of its passengers and also the third party cover, legal liability to passengers and to its paid driver, conductor, cleaner employed by the corporation.

          This insurance covers for the period 30.3.2014 to 29.3.2015.  One Siddappa who was driver cum conductor was driving the said vehicle on 03.12.2014 from Hyderabad to Bangalore dashed the vehicle to the road divider near Chenna Kottapali junction, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh State, as a result, the said bus turned turtle and capsized as a result the said Siddappa died in the said accident.  Under the employees Workmen’s Compensation Act, complainant deposited Rs.8,06,640/- before the Registrar, Court of Small causes, Bangalore.  In view of the insurance to the vehicle as well as to the driver, it is contended that OP has to pay the amount and wrote a letter on 18.03.2019 to OP demanding to pay the same. Legal notice was also issued to that effect.  Since the OP did not pay the amount complainant has come up with this complaint.

          It is further contended that the legal representatives/dependents of the deceased Siddappa (Driver) filed MVC 505/2018 and the Hon’ble Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.34,84,144/- as compensation under various heads and since a sum of Rs.10,95,415/- has been paid by the complainant under workmen’s compensation act, it awarded compensation ofRs.23,88,729/- to be paid by this complainant as well as the OP jointly and severally with 9%p.a.,

          The complainant is claiming the refund of Rs.8,06,640/- with interest from OP.  It is also contended that the cause of action arose on 03.12.2014 when the accident took place and subsequently on 06.02.2019 when an award was passed by M.V.C. Tribunal and on 21.01.2020 when the complainant issued a legal notice.

          On perusal of the documents filed, this insurance is for the year 2014-15 and the accident took place on 3.12.2014 and the driver Siddappa Kottegowda died on 3.12.2014.  In the letter dated 18.3.2019 filed by the complainant addressed to OP it is mentioned that, they have paid Rs.8,06,640/- through cheque bearing No.142174 dated 19.05.2015 under the workmen’s compensation act and deposited the same to the account of registrar court of small causes, Bangalore and has demanded the amount to be paid by OP.

          In our opinion this complaint is time barred as the complainant ought to have claimed reimbursement of the amount on or before 19.5.2017 the day on which they deposited the amount under workmen compensation act with registrar court of small causes.  They have not done so and under section 24-A of the Consumer protection act 1986 and also under the C.P. Act 2019, the complaint filed is barred by limitation.  Further in the MVC proceedings the liability has been fixed on this complainant as well as on this respondent.  If at all the complainant wants to recover the said amount, it has to make representation to the court of small causes or to file execution petition to recover the same.

          Under the circumstances, this complaint is not maintainable as there is no consumer and service provider exists as on today, since the matter is already before the Motor Vehicle Tribunal, and it has decided the compensation amount to be paid by the complainant as well as the OP.  It has been held in so many decisions by the National Commission and as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, that any number of correspondences and legal notices will not give fresh cause of action, hence the complaint filed is barred by limitation u/s 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, and hence the same is dismissed.

 

MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. H.R.SRINIVAS, B.Sc. LL.B.,]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sharavathi S.M.,B.A. L.L.B]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.