<br /> <br /> Date of Filing: 21.02.2008<br /> Date of Order: 20.06.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 20th DAY OF JUNE 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President<br /> Smt.C.V. Rajamma, B.Sc., LL.B., PGDPR, Member<br /> Sri. M. Nagabhushana, B.Com, LL.B., Member<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 477/2008 <br /> S. JAYAMMA,<br /> W/o. Srinivas, No.373/1, <br /> T.C. Poly Cross, Virgo Nagar,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 049. …… COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> - V/S -<br /> <br /> The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,<br /> Divisional Office, XII, No. 1001/56,<br /> Jayalakshmi Mansion, 2nd Floor, <br /> Dr. Rajkumar Road, 4th Block, <br /> Rajajinagara,<br /> BNAGALORE – 560 010. .....OPPOSITE PARTY<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards damage caused to the vehicle and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards expenses from the opposite party on the following grounds :-<br /> <br /> 2. The complainant being the owner of the Vehicle Tata Sumo bearing No. KA-01-N-9882 had got the same insured with opposite party No.1 for the period from 24.04.2001 to 24.04.2002. One Mr. George was engaged as driver for the said vehicle. On 25.01.2002 at about 1 a.m, the said vehicle met with an accident near Nandihill Curve. On the complaint of the inmate of the said vehicle, Police registered the Case in Crime No.17/2002 and after investigation Police filed FIR, Charge Sheet against the driver of the vehicle. The complainant spent Rs.1,59,812/- to remove the vehicle from the accident spot to the garage and to effect repairs to the vehicle. The vehicle was in the garage for one and half years and it was repaired as and when the spare parts were supplied whenever the amount was available. After getting the vehicle repaired the complainant made claim with the Opposite Party Company for settlement. The opposite party issued the Notice dated: 18.09.2003 calling the complainant to furnish certain particulars. Accordingly, the particulars were furnished. The officials of the opposite party also inspected the vehicle. By the letter dated: 19.11.2003 the opposite party repudiated the claim assigning untenable reasons. As a result of repudiation of the claim the complainant suffered mental agony. Several times she requested the opposite party to settle the claim but in vain. Before filling the complaint the complainant made sincere and persistent efforts for nearly four years for settlement of the claim, but the opposite party did not oblige. Hence, the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. Along with the complaint the complainant has also filed an Application under Section-5 of the Limitation Act., to condone the delay if any in filling the complaint. In the affidavit filed in support of the Application the complainant has stated that after the claim was repudiated on 19.11.2003, she made many requisitions several times for about four years, but the same did not yield any result. She is not aware of the procedure being a poor lady and therefore could not move the Forum immediately. She consulted the counsel in January-2008 and as advised by the counsel she handed over the papers and thereafter the complaint is filed without any delay. The delay if any is not on account of any deliberate act, but for the bonafide reasons stated above and therefore it is necessary to condone the delay if any in filing the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In the version the contention of the opposite party is as under:-<br /> The claim was repudiated as per the letter dated: 19.11.2003 and as such the complaint is barred by limitation under Section-24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act., as the same is not filed within two years from the date of repudiation or from the date of receipt of repudiation letter dated: 19.11.2003. After intimating about the accident the complainant failed to submit the vehicle documents including the Driving License of the driver. The intimation of the alleged damage was made belatedly. After the claim form was issued the same was submitted by the complainant duly filled, but without any documents. The Letter dated: 18.09.2003 was issued requesting the complainant to produce the documents and to furnish certain information to process the claim, but the complainant failed to comply with that request. The Insurance Policy was issued in respect of the vehicle in question for the period from 25.04.2001 to 24.04.2002. The Policy so issued is subject to various terms and conditions. Due observance of the statutory provisions, terms and conditions of contract of Insurance is a condition precedent for admission of any liability. The complainant failed to furnish the relevant documents as per the letter dated: 18.09.2003. The inordinate delay in submitting the documents was the sole reason for treating the claim as “No Claim”. On account of the inordinate delay in intimating about the accident the Insurance Company has been deprieved of having a Surveyor, being arranged immediately after the occurance of the incident to assess the damage or loss caused to the vehicle. The complainant was required to intimate about the loss or damage immediately. The delay in intimating about the damage/loss clearly demonstrates that the complainant is misrepresenting and playing fraud in respect of the claim. Since the complainant failed to submit relevant documents the Insurance Company was unable to process the claim. The relief clamed is unjust, fanciful and baseless. On these grounds the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits and have produced documents. We have heard the arguments on both sides.<br /> <br /> 6. The points for consideration are:-<br /> <br /> (1) Whether the complainant has shown reasonable cause <br /> for the delay in filing the complaint ?<br /> <br /> (2) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in <br /> service on the part of the opposite party ?<br /> <br /> (3) Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed<br /> for in the complaint ?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings to the above points is in the negative for the following reasons :-<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Point No. 1:-<br /> Admittedly, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on 19.11.2003. The complaint is filed on 21.02.2008 after more than four years from the date of repudiation. Except contending that after the opposite party repudiated the claim on 19.11.2003, she approached the opposite party several times the complainant has not assigned any reasonable or acceptable grounds to condone the delay of more than four years. From the documents produced by the opposite party it is seen that after the accident that took place on 25.01.2002, the complainant submitted the claim form on 30.01.2003 about one year after the accident. By the letter dated: 18.09.2003 the opposite party asked the complainant to furnish the following particulars :-<br /> 1. Whether the vehicle had been repaired.<br /> 2. Cash Bills along with salvage.<br /> 3. Vehicle documents (original for verification RC & TC)<br /> 4. DL of the driver.<br /> 5. Produced the vehicle for re-inspection.<br /> <br /> 9. In the letter dated: 19.11.2003 the opposite party gave the following reasons for repudiating the claim :-<br /> <br /> 1. The vehicle dismantled, not given a chance to our<br /> surveyor to inspect the vehicle. <br /> 2. No response to our Surveyor.<br /> 3. No salvage.<br /> 4. No repair Bills.<br /> <br /> 10. On receipt of the letter dated: 19.11.2003 the complainant gave a representation dated: 19.12.2003 requesting the Insurance Company to reconsider her claim. The Insurance Company gave reply dated: 16.02.2004 giving the same reasons for repudiating the claim and further stating that the competent authority has considered the claim for repudiation. The opposite party has also produced Exhibit: R-13 the representation dated: 05.04.2004 given by the complainant requesting for return of the documents for the purpose of approaching competent Forum and the complainant received the documents on 23.06.2004 as per the endorsement made on the said representation. Thus, it is clear that in the first instance the claim was repudiated on 19.11.2003 and thereafter the same was confirmed as per the letter dated: 16.02.2004. The complainant received back the documents on 23.06.2004, but complaint is filed on 21.02.2008. Even from 16.02.2004 the complaint is filed beyond two years. No acceptable grounds are made out in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay. In these circumstances in the absence of reasonable cause we have to uphold the contention of the opposite party that the complaint is barred by limitation. Since the complainant has not shown reasonable cause for condonation of delay, we hold that the complaint is barred by limitation and the application seeking condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. <br /> <br /> 11. In view of our finding on Point No.1, the other two points will not survive for consideration. Even otherwise, it is seen that though the accident occurred on 25.01.2002, no immediate intimation was given to the Insurance Company to enable Insurance Company to appoint the Surveyor to assess the damage caused to the vehicle. It appears the complainant intimated the Insurance Company after the vehicle was dismantled in the garage. At Exhibit: R-9 the opposite party has produced the report dated: 26.09.2003 submitted by the Surveyor. In this report the Surveyor has stated that when he proceeded to inspect the vehicle, he found the vehicle, the Engine, Gear Box in a dismantled state, the Steering system and suspension were removed, the repairer gave evasive answer when asked for reason for dismantling the vehicle before inspection, the insured did not meet the Surveyor as informed and therefore the Surveyor was unable to access the damage caused to the vehicle in the alleged accident. Even the complainant failed to furnish the particulars called for in the letter dated: 18.09.2003. Thus the Insurance Company had no occasion to get the damage caused to the vehicle assessed through the Surveyor as the vehicle was dismantled in the garage for the purposes of repairs before the Surveyor inspected the vehicle. In that event the complainant cannot blame the Insurance Company for not settling the claim. When the complainant herself failed to give immediate intimation about the accident and to furnish the documents called for, the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim and as such the act of the Insurance Company will not amount to deficiency in service. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. In the result, we pass the following :-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 10. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> <br /> 11. Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> 12. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 20TH DAY OF JUNE - 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />