Dated:12/01/2011.

                                                         O  R  A  L    O  R  D  E  R 

                            Per Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1.       The present appeal is filed by I.C.I.C.I.Lombard against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2010 in complaint case No.439/2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar.

2.       Respondent/Org.Complainant`s case before the Forum is that, her deceased husband Vilas Hase was the farmer in Maharashtra who died due to snake bite on 8.12.2005. It is alleged that Government of Maharashtra had obtained Shetkari Apghat Vima policy for the farmers in the Maharashtra for sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- for the period 10.04.2005 to 9.4.2006. Complainant being legal heir preferred the claim before Tahasildar, Sangamner who forwarded the same to the appellant on 22.12.2005.  But appellant did not settle the claim. Thus she approached the Forum.

3.       Present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim stating that Vilas Hase died on 8.12.2005 whereas complaint is filed on 6.8.2010 ie. Beyond period of two years and thus it is barred by limitation.

4.       The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed appellant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 10% from 22.12.2005.  Forum also directed appellant to pay Rs.1000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost.

5.       Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Ahmednagar, I.C.I.C.I.Lombard  came in appeal.

6.       We heard learned counsel  Shri.R.H.Dahat for appellant.  Learned counsel  Shri.Dahat submitted that Vilas Hase died on 8.12.2005 whereas complaint is filed on 6.8.2010.  According to him complaint ought to have been file within period of two years from the date of death of Vilas Hase. He further submitted that Forum erred in condoning the delay.  According to him delay was condoned exparte. Learned counsel  relied on ‘Sudama Lal Madhwani –Vs- New India Assurance Co.Ltd.’ ,II(2007) CPJ 144(NC),  and also ‘ The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. –Vs- Jaishankar Prasad Soni’, 2010(1) CPR 133, Chhattisgarh State Commission.

7.       We perused the papers. There is no dispute that Vilas Hase was the farmer in Maharashtra State  who died due to snake bite on 8.12.2005.  There is also no dispute that complaint in question was filed on 6.8.2010.  It is the contention of appellant that complaint filed by complainant is barred by limitation. It appears that application was filed by complainant for condonation of delay.  Forum had allowed the application for condonation of delay and had condoned the delay. Not only that it also appears that present appellant who contested the matter did not come in appeal against the said order passed by Forum. The order attained the finality. It also reveals that Forum has considered this aspect while considering the complaint finally. It also reveals from the papers that claim had been submitted by complainant through Tahasildar, Sangamner, the claim was not settled. Not only that but complainant had received letter from Tahasildar, Sangamner on 13.7.2010 in which she was informed that claim is pending before the appellant and it is still under consideration.  When letter of Tahasildar,Sangamner was received by complainant stating that claim is under consideration it cannot be said that limitation period starts from the date of accident. Letter of Tahasildar mentioned that claim is under consideration.  When the claim is under consideration limitation can not be started from date of death. When claim was under consideration, limitation appears to have been extended by letter given by Tahasildar, Sangamner to the complainant.

8.       Appellant`s counsel tried to contend that interest has been granted from 22.12.2005.  According to him interest ought to have been granted from 15.11.2010 i.e. from the date of judgment. We are of view that interest is required to be granted from the date of repudiation. In this case, claim is not settled or repudiated. It was expected that claim ought to have been settled or repudiated within reasonable period i.e. within 3 months from the date of receipt of claim in question. At the most interest could have been granted from 22.3.2006 .  Accordingly, we modify the order.

                                                O   R    D    E    R

1.     Appeal is disposed of with the modification that the interest on Rs.1,00,000/- is to be granted @ 10% from 22.3.2006 instead of 22.12.2005.

2.     Rest of the order is maintained as it is.

3.     No order as to cost.

4.     Pronounced and dictated in the open court.

5.     Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.