Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1.      None is present for the appellant.  Advocate Mr A R Godbole is present for respondent No.1. None is present for respondent No.2.

2.      Advocate Mr Godbole submitted that on last date i.e. on 22.10.2016 the appellant had paid cost of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent No.1 as imposed by this Commission for condonation of delay, that occurred in filing of this appeal bearing No.A/15/468. 

3.      Today this appeal is listed for hearing on admission.  We have heard advocate of respondent No.1 on the point of admission of the appeal. 

4.      Perusal of the record & proceedings of the appeal shows that the Forum dismissed the complaint by passing impugned order on the grounds firstly that though the complaint is barred by limitation, the application for condonation of delay is not filed, secondly that there is no document showing the exact cause of death of the deceased and thirdly that none appeared for the original complainant / appellant for hearing since long. 

5.      The learned advocate of the respondent No.1 supported that order and submitted that there was delay of four years in filing the consumer complaint and the Forum below has rightly dismissed the complaint as it was time barred and no application was made for condonation of that delay. He also submitted that no document was filed before the Forum to show as to motor accident took place and the deceased died in that accident. He, therefore, requested that the appeal may be dismissed.

6.      The copy of the complaint shows that the deceased Anand Marathe died on 28.05.2005.  The complainant claimed that he died in motor accident and as he was a farmer, he was covered under the policy, issued by opposite party No.1 - Insurance Company and therefore, the complainant had claimed sum assured of Rs.1.00 Lac from opposite party No.1 with interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

          The Forum below at the stage or admission of the complaint passed the impugned order as above and thereby dismissed the complaint.

7.      It is pertinent to note that the death certificate produced by the appellant is relating to Nanaji Anandrao Marathe and not of Anandrao Marathe.  Moreover, no document is produced by the appellant to prove that Anand Marathe was covered under the policy issued by opposite party No.1, and to prove that he met with accidental death, for claiming compensation of Rs.1.00 Lac under that policy. So also, as per the complaint Anandrao Marathe died on 28.05.2005, whereas the complaint was filed before the Forum on 05.04.2011.  The period of limitation started to run for filing the complaint from 28.05.2005 and the period of limitation provided under Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is two years only.  Therefore, there was a delay of more than four years in filing the complaint and no application was made by the original complainant / appellant for condonation of that delay. 

8.      Moreover, in the complaint it is stated that the claim was made on 05.09.2008 to opposite party No.1 through Taluka Agricultural Officer, Nagbhid, who sent the same to opposite party No.2.  It is also stated in the complaint that opposite party No.1 has not settled the claim. No document was placed before the Forum below to show that the claim was actually made to opposite party No.1 through Taluka Agricultural Officer as stated in the complaint.

9.      Therefore, for these reasons the Forum has rightly held that the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

          We thus find that the impugned order is just, correct and proper and needs to be confirmed in appeal.

ORDER

i.        The appeal is dismissed.

ii.       No order as to costs in this appeal.

iii.      Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.