Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/15/101

MD. Aziz - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jun 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Commission, Bokaro.

Case No. 101/2015

  Date of Filing-09-09-2015

 Date of Order-23-06-2022

Md. Aziz S/o Md. Yasin

R/o Village- Harmita, P.O.-Olvadda, P.S.- Peterwar,

District- Bokaro (Jharkhand)

At Present resident of Sultan Nagar, Ansari Mohalla,

Chas, P.O. & P.S.-Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand

                                      Vr.

1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Chandra Kali Bhawan, Plot No. City Centre,

Sector-4, P.O. and P.S.- Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City,

District- Bokaro Jharkhand

2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Himalaya House, 8^th Floor, 38, BJL, Nehru Road, Kolkata 700071

Present:-

          Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

           Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

          Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

                                                -Order-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. for payment of Rs. 1,54,726/- on account of medical expense incurred during treatment of complainant  and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation.
2.  Complainant’s case in brief is that he is owner of Truck bearing Registration No. WB-23A-6678 which was insured with O.Ps. for the period from 19.02.2009 to 18.02.2010 meanwhile said vehicle met with an accident on 12.08.2009 at 09:30P.M. near Pindrajora for which S.D.E No. 295/09 was registered in Pindrajora P.S. Further case is that complainant made a claim to O.P. in which authorized surveyor verified paper etc. accordingly vehicle was repaired for which complainant paid Rs. 1,54,726/- and submitted claim on which certain papers like payments bill, receipt, policy copy owner book, driving license, fitness certificate FIR etc. were demanded which were submitted to the O.Ps. Further case is that inspite of observing all formalities no claim was paid hence legal notice was served on O.Ps. on 14.06.2010 having no impact then this case has been filed on 09.09.2015.
3. W.S. has been filed by the O.P. No.2 mentioning therein that there was no intimation regarding accident to the O.P. and case is hopelessly time barred which has been filed after more than 5 years period from the cause of action. Further reply is that as per SDE paper complainant has received the vehicle from the P.S. concerned well in condition who has not submitted route permit also nor submitted any papers before the O.Ps. for settlement of the claim.
4.  Now, we have to see whether claim of the complainant is time barred ? Whether complainant is entitled to get any relief as claimed ?
5. It is very much clear from para 14 of the complaint petition that cause of action arose on 12.08.2009 when accident was occurred and on 14.06.2010 when legal notice was served. On perusal of the record it appears that case has been filed on 09.09.2015 which shows that after 6 years from the date of accident complaint was filed before this Forum. Therefore, case is hopelessly time barred for which there is no prayer to condone the delay. Hence this point is being decided against the complainant.
6.  From the papers annexed with the complaint petition it appears that photo copies of certificate of registration, Insurance policy bond, SDE entry, driving license, temporary permit valid from 27.12.2009 to 03.04.2010, 27.11.2010 to 18.03.2011, some payment receipts and photo copy of legal notice have been filed on behalf of complainant. There is no paper to show that complainant has ever provided the papers to the O.Ps. for settlement of claim. No route permit of the relevant period has been produced to show that on 12.08.2009 when accident was occurred vehicle concerned was being played with valid permit.
7.  In support of the contents of the W.S. O.Ps. have placed reliance of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 2014 -3 CPR (NC) 679. We are of the opinion that the principles laid down in above mentioned case are helpful for the O.Ps.
8.  In light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to get any relief and this case is liable to dismissed. Accordingly both points are being decided against the complainant.
9.  In the result this case is dismissed with cost.