SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
Filed on 21/05/2005
The case of the complainant is that his son is a member of the 1st opposite party society. There is an insurance coverage from the 2nd opposite party for the members of the 1st opposite party. The scheme of this insurance is “Janatha Personal Accident Policy.” Complainant's son Cherian @ Jacob met with an accident and died. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties not honoured the insurance claim. Hence the complainant filed this petition.
2. Opposite party filed version stating that complainant filed a claim for getting the benefit under the group insurance scheme of “Janatha Personal Accident Policy” which was acquired through Kerala Fisherman Welfare Fund Board. Against this claim they paid Rs. 1 lakh. Subsequent this, Rs. 1 lakh claimed through ‘Matsyafed’. This claim was rejected on 28.11.2001 on the ground that deceased was not a member of the local Co-Operative Society on the date of accident. This complaint filed only on 21.5.2005. Complainant is not entitled to get the insurance claim as alleged in the complaint. Hence complaint is barred by limitation. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party.
3. Considering the rival contentions of the both sides this forum raise following:-
a. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Complainant examined one witnesses and produced 2 documents which are marked as Exbt. Al to A 2 .. Opposite parties examined two witnesses and produced 16 documents which are marked as Exhibits B1 to B16.
5. The case of the complainant is that his son met with a road traffic accident on 19.7.2000 and died. The opposite party repudiated the claim on 28.11.2001. There is no dispute to the date of repudiation. As per Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act a complaint has to be filed within 2 years from the date of the cause of action arises. Here, the cause of action of this complaint arised on 28.11.2001. But this complaint was filed only on 21.5.2005. Hence this complaint is perfectly barred by limitation. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
In the result complaint dismissed. No order on cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of August, 2008.
Sd/- Sri.Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri.K.Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Reynold (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the Receipt for Rs.16/-
Ext.A2 - Copy of the Receipt for Rs.30/-
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Jain (Witness)
RW2 - Parameswaran Nair (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the receipt of SBT dated 31.3.2000
Ext.B2 - Copy of the statement
Ext.B3 - Attested copy of the insurance policy
Ext.B4 - Claim form
Ext.B5 - Copy of the letter dated 24.12.2001
Ext.B6 - Copy of the discharge voucher
Ext.B7 - Original receipt of SBT dated 31.3.2000 and statement
Ext.B8 - Claim application
Ext.B9 - Copy of the FIR
Ext.B10 - Copy of the investigation report
Ext.B11 - Admission register page No.378
Ext.B12 - Daily cash book page 205 – related to Ad. Reg.
Ext.B13 - Receipt book No.12 – related to Ad. Reg.
Ext.B14 - General Ledger page 2 – related to Ad. Reg.
Ext.B15 - Copy of the letter dtd. 28.11.2001
Ext.B16 - Deposition of Benchamin (First information)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
