Maharashtra

Chandrapur

MA/16/5

Chief conservator of forests And Field Derector Tadoba Tiger Project ,chandrapur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Anil Damodhar Borkar At Saoli - Opp.Party(s)

Adv Ambatkar

19 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
CHANDRAPUR
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/16/5
( Date of Filing : 09 Feb 2016 )
In
Complaint Case No. CC/16/17
 
1. Chief conservator of forests And Field Derector Tadoba Tiger Project ,chandrapur
North Chandrapur Forest Circle
chandrapur
maharshtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Shri Anil Damodhar Borkar At Saoli
Saoli
chandrapur
mahrashtra
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Atul D.Alsi PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Kirti Vaidya Gadgil MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Kalpana Jangade Kute MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
Dated : 19 Jun 2018
Final Order / Judgement

 

 

Final Order / Judgement

PER MR. ATUL D. ALSI HON'BLE PRESIDENT

      The complainant has filed a complaint U/s12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 against the Insurance Company for grant of compensation under the Insurance Policy against the fire Insurance amounting to Rs.16,00,624/- alongwith this application for condonation of delay.

      The counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant floated a tender for collection of Tendu Leaves in north Chandrapur Circle. The tender was accepted and agreement came to be executed and as per the agreement, tendu leaves were stored in the godown.  On 2/11/2007, there was fire in the godown. Therefore an FIR came to be registered at Police Station, Mul, Distt. Chandrapur. The said stock was insured with the Respondent No.2 by paying a premium of Rs.15,438/-. The period of insurance was from 14/9/2007 to 13/9/2008.  The complainant suffered a loss amounting to Rs.16,00/624/-. Hence the complainant submitted insurance claim to the Respondent No.2, who repudiated the same. Thereafter, the complainant again requested for reconsideration of the claim at various higher offices of the Respondent. The complainant, on number of occasions, issued letters to reconsider and release the claim at various offices, but the claim was not reconsidered. Therefore, he issued legal notice to the Respondent No.2 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter the matter was subjudice before the headoffice, but the same was not decided. Therefore, the complainant had no alternative than to file complaint before the Forum. Hence there  is a delay of nine months nine days in filing the complaint. The delay is bonafide, unintentional and the complainant has a good  case on merit. Therefore the delay may kindly be condoned.

         The counsel for the OP Nos.2 & 3 submitted that the cause of action to file the complaint arose on the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 15/12/2010. The complaint came to be filed on 19/2/2016. Therefore the complaint is not filed within the limitation period of two years. The delay is inordinate and it has not been properly explained by the complainant. The complainant has knowledge of repudiation of his insurance claim. The reason of matter ubjudice before higher authorities for reconsideration of claim, can not be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay deserves to be dimissed with costs.

         The Respondent No.2 has repudiated the insurance claim vide letter dated 15/12/2010. The counsel for the complainant submitted that for reconsideration of the claim, the complainant moved letters to the various  higher authorities. The complaint came to be filed on 19/2/2016. There is an inordinate delay of more than 4 years from repudiation of claim after the period of limitation. The applicant has already chosen the remedy by filing Civil Suit bearing No.191/2010 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur  against the present respondent and in respect of the same relief and he has knowledge of pendency of the said suit. There is no substantial reason for inordinate delay to condone the delay on merit. Therefore the reasons submitted by the complainant are not satisfactory. Therefore the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the complaint case also stands dismissed.

 
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Atul D.Alsi]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Kirti Vaidya Gadgil]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Kalpana Jangade Kute]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.