BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 84/2012.
THIS THE 19th DAY OF OCTOBER 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa, B.A.LLB. MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Venkob S/o. Ramanna, Age; 70 years, Occ:
Agriculture, Owner of the Tractor & Trailer No. KA-36 TA 1182 & 1183, R/o. Hirerayakumpi, Tq. Deodurga, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Manager, Pragati Grameena Bank, Branch
Koppar, Tq. Deodurga, Dist: Raichur.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur
through its Divisional Manager.
Date of institution :- 09-10-12.
Date of disposal :- 19-10-12.
Complainant represented by Smt. Mallamma Ireddy, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
ORDERS ON LIMITATION AND MAINTAINABILITY.
This is the complaint filed by the complainant Venkob against opposite No.1 Pragathi Grameena Bank Branch, Raichur and opposite No-2 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to pay an amount of Rs. 3,15,000/-, to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest and cost.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, he is the owner of tractor & trailer bearing No. KA-36 TA 1182 & 1183. He purchased it, with financial assistance of opposite No-1 and in turn it has to be paid to opposite No-2 Insurance Company. Till 2004-05. Opposite No-1 regularly remitted Insurance premium to opposite No-2 thereafter, it not paid insurance premiums to opposite No-2. On 08-05-2006 on Miyapur Masaralall road at 6:30 PM the vehicle met with an accident. One Bhimayya died in the accident, police case registered in that case. One Mangamma filed claim petition bearing MVC No. 173/2007 before the MACT Raichur. This complainant was the opposite No-1 in that case. He submitted his objections to the claim of Mangamma, however the Hon’ble MACT awarded an amount of Rs. 3,15,000/- with 6% interest to Mangamma. She not filed appeal against that award on the belief that, opposite No-2 Insurance Company will pay the said amount, but it not paid. Later on, the said Mangamma filed EP. Hence this complaint is filed before this Forum for to direct opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to pay an amount of Rs. 3,15,000/- with 6 % interest with other reliefs as noted in his complaint.
3. We heard regarding the limitation point as well as maintainability of this complaint. Perused the facts pleaded in the complaint with documents filed.
4. In view of the circumstances stated above. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether complainant has made out proper, sufficient and grounds to condone the delay as prayed in IA filed. U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P.Act, and whether, this nature of the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
2. What order.
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
1) This complaint is barred by limitation and the present complainant is not maintainable before the DCF.
2) In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following.
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
6. Section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act is preemptory in nature and it is mandatory for the Consumer Forum to see as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainant before it was filed, within two years from the date of accrual cause of action. The word “has not admit a complaint” as used U/sec. 24(A(1) is indicating legislative command to the Consumer Forum for to examine it on its own whether complaint has been filed within limitation period or not. If, the complaint is filed, within limitation then, consumer forum as to deal the complaint on merits, if not filed them it has to be discussed at threshold. (State Bank of India V/s. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries 2009 AIR 2210 Supreme Court and (2) Quality Silk Processors Private Ltd., V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2010 CJ 1152 (NC).
7. It is our duty to see as to whether, this complaint is under limitation of two years as required U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act are not.
8. We have perused the entire facts pleaded by the complainant in this case and submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant. From this, we can gather some of material facts out of the pleadings and submissions made are that, the complainant is the owner of the said tractor & trailer which was insured with opposite No-2 Insurance Company.
9. One Hanumayya died by falling from the tractor, thereafter one Mangamma filed MVC No. 173/2007. This complainant was opposite No-1 in the said case and filed his objections, thereafter MACT Raichur awarded an amount of Rs. 3,15,000/- with 6% interest on 17-12-2008. The complainant who was opposite No-1 in that case not preferred any appeal against that award. In view of the fact, the cause of action to file her complaint must be as on the date of his appearance in MVC No. 173/2007 or at the most from the date of award, he has to file his complaint before the Consumer Forum within two years from any one of the said two dates. But this complaint was filed on 12-10-2012, that means this complaint is filed after about four years from the date of cause of action.
10. Issuance of legal notice dt. 26-07-2012 is not enlarging the limitation period of two years (1) (IV) 2004 CPJ 240 Douglas Antony V/s. Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors, and (2) 2000(1) CPR Page 9 296 Mark International V/s. Bank of India & Ors.
Admittedly at the later stage complainant has filed IA U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act without accepting the delay requested to condone the delay without proper reasons. Hence, it is rejected by holding that this complaint is barred by limitation U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act.
11. Apart from the limitation point, we have gone through the entire pleadings of the complaint as well as documents filed along with this case. The complainant is no way stated regarding the damage to his tractor and trailor in the said accident. He not stated any thing about damage to his vehicle and not claimed insurance amount for damage to his vehicle. He intended to claim the award amount of Rs. 3,15,000/- with 6% interest, which was awarded by MACT in MVC 173/2007, filed by Mangamma. MACT is dealing with a claim of injured or deceased pertaining to the accident. Consumer Forums are not dealing the claim of injured or the claims of other regarding death of parties in the accident. We are dealing only with the claim of the parties regarding the damage to the vehicle covered by the Insurance Policy. Hence, we surprise to note that, how this type of complaint is filed by the complainant before Consumer Forum. There is no explanation for filing such nature of the complaint before this Consumer Forum. In view of the fact, this Consumer Forum is not competent to deal with the subject matter of the complaint, and thereby this complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly we answered Point No-1.
POINT NO.2:-
12. In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
IA is dismissed and thereby this complaint is also dismissed as it is time barred complaint. This complaint is also dismissed as this nature of complaint is not maintainable before Consumer Forum.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 19-10-12)
Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
