West Bengal

StateCommission

A/366/2017

Padma Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ms. Sunita Guha, Nadeem Sulaiman

06 Nov 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
First Appeal No. A/366/2017
( Date of Filing : 24 Mar 2017 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 25/01/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/188/2015 of District Burdwan)
 
1. Padma Das
W/o Lt. Lakshaman Das, R/o. G-Block, Nutan Pally, P.O. - Durgapur, Dist. - Burdwan, Pin -713 213.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Br. office at Khudiram Sarani, City Centre, rep. by its br. Manager.
2. Tilottama Das
W/o Debendra Das, J-Block, Natun Pally, School Para Road, Benachity, Durgapur, Burdwan, Pin - 713 213.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:Ms. Sunita Guha, Nadeem Sulaiman, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Debdas Rudra, Advocate
Dated : 06 Nov 2019
Final Order / Judgement

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved with the impugned order, by which the instant complaint case has been dismissed by the Ld. District Forum, this Appeal is moved by Smt. Padma Das, the de facto Complainant.

The dispute cropped up between the parties over non-settlement of Appellant’s claim by the Respondent Insurance Company. 

As the Respondent No. 1 did not turn up before this Commission, the Appeal was heard ex parte against it. On notice, the Respondent No. 2 turned up before this Commission through her Ld. Advocate, who took a positive part at the time of hearing.

In the opinion of the Ld. District Forum, the instant complaint case was barred by limitation.  In this regard, it is noted by me that the accident took place on 29-11-2012 and the Appellant’s husband, who was the owner-driver of the ill-fated vehicle, succumbed to his injuries on 02-12-2012.  Thereafter, the Appellant staked insurance claim with the Respondent No. 1 on 16-08-2013. 

It is true that the said letter does not contain the office seal of the Respondent No. 1.  Given that the Appellant’s claim in this regard remained unchallenged, there was no valid reason for the Ld. District Forum to jump to conclusion that it was not sufficient to establish that the Appellant indeed staked claim on that day. In my considered opinion, the Appellant deserves benefit of doubt in this regard. 

As cause of action consists of bundle of facts, considering 16-08-2013 as the base date, it appears to me that the instant case was filed well within the limitation period. 

As regards other maintainability aspects being pointed out by the Ld. District Forum in the impugned order, the same being always curable, I am inclined to accord due privilege to the Appellant to surmount those technical loopholes.

Accordingly, I direct the Appellant to plug all the loopholes being pointed out by the Ld. District Forum in the order impugned and file an amended petition of complaint before it within 60 days from this day. 

The Appeal, accordingly, stands allowed in part. The impugned order is hereby set aside.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA]
PRESIDING 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.