::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.52/2015.
Date of filing: 24.07.2015.
Date of disposal: 30.04.2018.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: 1. Raghoba S/o Tukaram,
Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Village Ghatboral
Tq: Humnabad, Dist: Bidar.
(By Sri. Sanjay Mathpati., Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) Branch Manager Reliance General
Insurance CompanyTimmapuri Circle
Kalaburgi.
2) The managing director District Central
Co-operative Bank Bidar.
(By.Sri.Satish Kulkarni., Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
The complainant has preferred this complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, alleging deficiency of service in the part of the O.P.s. The complaint averments are as follows:-
2. That, the complainant availing financial assistance from the O.P.No.2 had purchased a JOHN DEERE Tractor- Trailer, which was later assigned registration No.KA39 T-3688. On the coaxing of the O.P.No.2, he had registered the instant Tractor Trailer with the O.P.No.1 vide policy No.1407712343001003, date of validity 01.02.2012 to 31.01.2013. The O.P.No.2 himself had remitted the premium and had assured to solve all problems relating to unfore seen disputes that may arise in connection with the insurance.
3. The complainant further avers that, when the Tractor Trailer on27.12.2012, at about 1.00p.m. was proceeding to his agriculture field loading fertilizers, near the land of one Hosale of Ghatboral- Raypalli village Road, the driver by name Karthikeya Swamy, driving the Tractor rashly and negligently, lost control of the vehicle and the Tractor was toppled on the right side and sustained damages. A case was registered in jurisdictional Humnabad Police Station vide Cr. No. 237/2012 and final report has been filed.
4. The complainant further claims that, the fact of accident was informed to the O.P.No.1, consequent upon which a surveyor being deputed, assessed the damages. The complainant thereafter got the vehicle repaired the Tractor incurring expenditure of Rs.88,648/- and had further spent Rs.10,000/- to bring the vehicle for repair. He has submitted all bills with the O.P.No.1 along with vehicle papers. It is the say of the complainant that, though initially the O.P.No.1 agreed to reimburse the repairs bills, vide a letter dated 30.05.2013 repudiated the claim on the pretext that, three passengers were being carried at the time of accident illegally. Thereafter also, the complainant was visiting the office of O.P.No.1 regularly and its officers were assuring claim settlement, but never did so.
5. Thereafter, the complainant states, he got issued a legal notice on 01.03.2015, calling upon the O.P.No1 to settle the claim, which met with a stoic silence. The complainant being of old age was sick during the months of May, June and second of week of July 2015, could not file claim within two years of repudiation of claim and has filed a separate application u/s 29-A(2) of C.P. Act, elaborately stating reason for delay (sic).
6. The complainant says, even after filing the case, he was pursuing the case with O.P.No.1 to no avail and is filing the case with a claim of Rs.98,548/- towards repair of the Tractor and Rs.10,000/- towards damages.
7. We find that, there is an I.A. filed u/s 24-A(2) of the C.P. Act, annexed to the complaint.
8. On receipt of Court notice, only the O.P.No.1 has put up appearance through counsel and has filed written versions challenging the complaint averments and justification thereof. The O.P.No.2 has opted not to appear and has been placed exparte.
9. The O.P.No.1, in its versions has mainly challenged the complaint on two grounds:-
a. There is delay in filing the complaint without any application of condo nation of delay.
b. There persons were being carried as passengers is violation the policy conditions.
All others grounds urged are per functory in nature.
10. Considering the averments and counter by O.P.No.1, we fix the following points for consideration.
- Is the complaint not entertain able having been filed beyond the period of limitation?
- Does the complainant prove deficiency of service?
- What orders?
11. Our answers to points are as following:-
- In the affirmative.
- Does not survive for consideration.
- As per the final orders, owing to the following:-
:: REASONS ::
12. Point (a): Contrary to the assertions of theO.P.No.1, we find, factually, there is an I.A. filed u/s 24 -A(2) of the C.P. Act by the complainant. The instant case has been filed on 25.07.2017, much beyond the date of arisal of cause of action. The complainant in the supporting affidavit states that, in the months of May, June and till second week of July, 2015, he was suffering from jaundice, fever and body pain and was taking treatment from a Hakim. No medical certificate has been produced to that effect and it is difficult to accept the one sided averments of the complainant. Further, we are dismayed by the lackadaisical approaches of both sides counsel to pursue the case to its logical end by absenting themselves at most crucial junctures and prolonging the case till now. We deprecate the attitudes and endeavours of the learned counsels of the parties, and would like to put on record that, Consumer Foras cannot be treated as dumping grounds of any ones fancies or follies. We therefore propose to impose penalty on both sides and hold that, the delay in filing the case is not justified by the complainant.
13. Point (b). We hold that, the case does not survive for consideration, and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER.
- The case is dismissed being barred by limitation;
- Both sides are directed to remit a penalty of Rs.10,000/- each favouring the Consumers legal aid account of this forum;
- Four weeks time granted to comply this order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 30th day of April 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure. A- C.C. of F.I.R. and complaint in Cr.No.237/2012 of
Humnabad Trafic Police. - Annexure. B– C.C. of spot Mahzar of the case.
- Annexure. C– C.C. of Motor Vehicle Accident report of I.M.V.
- Annexure. D—Copy of R.C. Book.
- Annexure. E– C.C. of judgement and award in M.V.C. No.187/2013
of the M.A.C.T., Humnabad. - Annexure. F- C.C. of the order sheet of the above case.
- Annexure. G- Copy of Insurance certificate.
- Annexure. H- Copy of Bills of m/s Keshav Enterprises.
- Annexure. J- Copy of repudiation letter.
- Annexure. K- Office copy of legal notice.
- Annexure. L- Postal receipt of above.
Document produced by the Opponents.
- Annexure.R.1- Survey report with enclosures.
- Annexure.R.2- Copy of repudiation letter.
- Annexure.R.3- Copy of R.C. Book.
- Annexure.R.4- Copy of claim form.
- Annexure.R.5- copy of Driving licence.
- Annexure.R.6- Copy of estimate of M/s Keshav Enterprises.
- Annexure.R.7- Copy of Communications.
- Annexure.R.8- Copy of Insurance application.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Sri. Raghoba S/o Tukaram, Complainant.
Opponent No.1
- R.W.1- Sri. Kiran S/o Pujar, - Authorised officer of O.P.No.1.
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
