BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 44/11.
THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Mallangouda S/o. Siddanagouda, Age: Major,
Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Devathagal, Tq. Deodurga, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENT :- The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.
Ltd., Branch Raichur P.B. No. 41, Near Gandhi chowk, Raichur.
Date of institution :- 17-06-11.
Date of disposal :- 29-07-11.
Complainant represented by Smt. Vijayalaxmi, Advocate.
Respondent represented by Sri. Vishwanath Pattanshetty, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire materials placed on record by the parties passed the following.
ORDER ON IA-1
This is the application filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay of (1) year (11) months (12) days in filing this complaint for the reasons stated in his affidavit.
2. The brief facts of the application are that, the tractor bearing No. KA-36/T-8831 with Trailer No. 8832 were purchased by him for agriculture purpose. On 21-01-05 Tractor & Trailer met with an accident while insurance policy issued by opposite was inforce. He filed police complaint and got repaired his vehicle and thereafter, he filed claim petition before the opposite insurance company. But insurance company not settled his claim by giving one or the other reasons. He got issued legal notice dt. 15/29-06-09, opposite replied through its notice dt. 03-07-09 by stating that, his claim was repudiated, he not received any such letter of repudiation by the opposite, as such there was a delay in filing his complaint, accordingly he filed this complaint along with this application for to condone the delay. If IA is not allowed, he will be put into great loss and hardship. Hence he prayed for to allow this complaint by condone the delay in filing complaint.
3. Opposite appeared in his case, filed written objections to the said IA by contending that, there are no sufficient and proper reasons to condone the delay. As per case papers, there is delay of (3) years (7) months, opposite company repudiated his claim vide its letter dt. 22-11-05 and it was served on the complainant on 23-11-05 vide postal acknowledgment. Hence there are no proper sufficient and good grounds to condone the delay accordingly, it prayed for to dismiss IA-1 among other grounds.
4. In view of the contentions and Rival contentions of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant has made out proper, sufficient and good grounds to condone the delay in filing his complaint for the reasons stated in the affidavit annexed to this petition.
2. What order.
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
1) In Negative.
2) In view of our finding on Point NO-1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following.
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
6. On perusal of the affidavit annexed to this application, complainant stated the facts of his case regarding the accident of tractor and filing his complaint before the police in Paras-1 to 3.
7. In Para- 4, he stated the fact that, he filed claim petition before the opposite in the month of February-2005. Thereafter he approached opposite insurance company to settle his claim, but not settled his claim. In Para-5 it is further stated by him that, on 15/29-06-09 he issued legal notice to opposite and opposite replied vide its letter dt. 03-07-09 regarding repudiation of his claim. He not received such intimation or letter of repudiation by the opposite. Hence there was a delay of (1) year (11) months (12) days in filing his complaint.
8. It appears from the facts stated in Para-4 & 5 of his affidavit that, only one ground mentioned by him for to condone the delay either (1) year (11) months (12) days or (3) years (7) months as contended by the opposites.
9. On perusal of the objections filed by opposite insurance company and documents, the letter of repudiation dt. 22-11-05 was sent to complainant by RPAD and as per postal acknowledgement, the complainant-himself received the said letter on 23-01-05. The said letter clearly shows that, the claim of complainant was repudiated on the ground that, it was carrying passengers at the time of accident.
10. Now, we are concerned only to see as to whether the date of this letter 22-11-05 or 23-11-05 creates cause of action for the complainant or as to whether his legal notice dt. 15/29-06-09 or the reply letter of opposite dt. 03-07-09 creates cause of action for him to file this complaint.
11. The learned advocate for complainant as well as opposite submitted their respective written arguments in this regard. We have perused the entire facts stated in their respective written arguments and also the principles of the rulings referred by opposite in State Bank of India V/s. B.S. Agriculture Industry AIR 2009 SC Page 2210. (2) Haryana Urban Development Authority V/s. B.K. Sood reported in 2006 (1) CPR 121 Supreme Court and (3) the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2010 CJ 1152 (NC) and the principles noted in other rulings, we are of the clear view that, the cause of action arisen to complainant on 23-11-05 which is the date of receipt of letter of repudiation of opposite insurance company vide postal acknowledgement which was signed by the complainant-himself. The legal notice dt. 15/29-06-09 or reply letter of opposite dt. 03-07-09 are not enlarging the limitation period of two years from the date of cause of action. Hence reasons stated in his affidavit at Para- 4 & 5 are contrary to the documents vide repudiation letter dt. 22-11-05 and receipt of it by the complainant vide postal acknowledgement dt. 23-11-05. Hence reasons shown by the complainant to condone such abnormal delay are not proper, sufficient and grounds. Hence there is no merit in this application, accordingly we answered this point in negative.
POINT NO.2:-
12. In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
IA-1 filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act is rejected.
Consequently complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as it is barred by limitation.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-06-10)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
