KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO.544/10

JUDGMENT DATED :30.11.11

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR             :  MEMBER

C. KunjuKunju, S/o. Late Chacko,

Kalluthundil Veedu, Thrikkanna mangal,           :  APPELLANT

Kottarakkara.

(By Advs. C.S. Rajmohan & Others)

Vs

1.      The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

          Represented by Divisional Manager,

          LIC Building Chinnakada, Kollam. 

2.      Branch Manager,

          The Oriental Insurance Co-Ltd.,              :  RESPONDENTS

          V.V. Arcade, Pulamon,

          Kottarakkara.

(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR   :  MEMBER

          This appeal is preferred by the complainant in CC NO.311/08 before the CDRF, Kollam. It is aggrieved by the disposal of the IA 165/10 allowing the case of the opposite parties that the present appeal is filed calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.

2.      The complainant has approached the Forum stating that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service by playing trick thereby misleading the MACT Kollam that the policy issued to the complainant was not in existence at the time of accident. It is submitted by him that he came to know about the said fact only on 3.10.08 when he received the legal notice from the tribunal.

          3.      Disputing the maintainability of the complaint, the opposite party filed in IA 165/10 wherein it was submitted that the complainant had suppressed material facts while filing the complaint. It was also submitted that the complaint was time barred and also that the grievances were relating to an award passed by MACT, Kollam and hence the Forum had to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The Forum below after hearing both sides passed the order in the IA finding that the complaint was time barred and the IA was allowed in favour of the opposite parties. The Forum below had dismissed the complaint also as not maintainable. It is against the said orders that the complainant has sought for remedy before this commission.

5.      Heard both sides.

6.      The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that though the accident had happened on 2.6.2000 and though the OP was filed before the MACT, Kollam as OP (MV) No. 2121/2001 the complainant came to know about the crucial point of the non -submission of the policy details by the opposite parties only on 3.10.08 and the complainant filed the complaint within 2 years and hence there was no delay. It is submitted that the Forum below ought to have proceeded with the complaint rather than dismissing the same finding that the complaint was time barred. It is also his case that the opposite parties/respondents had willfully suppressed the fact of a valid policy issued to the complainant before the MACT, Kollam. He has submitted that the appeal is to be allowed and the matter be remitted back to the Forum below for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence in the matter.

7.      Though the learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that the complainant had received the notice only on 3.10.08 it is seen that the complainant himself has admitted in para 4 (page 2) the complaint that the accident had happened on 2.6.2000. He has also stated that he had received a notice from the MACT Kollam in OP (MV) 2121/2001 and he had engaged a lawyer to defend the case. The learned counsel would argue that the fact of suppression of policy details came to his notice on 3.10.08. Any how, it cannot be found that the complainant was not aware of the proceedings before the MACT, Kollam ever before getting the notice on 3.10.08.  The complainant would say that his Advocate had passed away during the litigation period. It is no excuse to say that the complainant received a notice only much late from the MACT on 3.10.08 and he filed the complaint on 15.12.08 and hence the complaint is not barred by limitation. We find that the Forum below has considered all the facts in detail and we are in agreement with the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order dated: 30.7.2010 of CDRF, Kollam in CC No. 311/08 is confirmed.

In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum below along with a copy of this order.

S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR:  MEMBER

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

DA