West Bengal

Cooch Behar

CC/107/2018

Sri Jiban Ch. Paul, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Kumardeep Mukherjee

10 Jan 2019

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
B. S. Road, Cooch Behar -736101.
Ph. No. 03582-230696, 222023
E-mail - confo-kb-wb at the rate of nic.in
Web - www.confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/107/2018
( Date of Filing : 20 Dec 2018 )
 
1. Sri Jiban Ch. Paul,
S/o. Late Manindra Ch. Paul, Vill. Kutipara, P.O. Hatiduba, P.S. Pundibari, Dist. Cooch Behar-736133.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Cooch Behar Branch, R.N. Road, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & Dist. Cooch Behar-736101.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. RUMKI SAMAJDAR MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Sri Kumardeep Mukherjee, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 10 Jan 2019
Final Order / Judgement

 

Hon’ble Mr. Manojit Mandal, President

Order No.4, dated 10/01/2019

The Complainant is represented by his Ld. Advocate and files hazirah.

Today is fixed for passing order.

The record is taken up for passing order.

The Ld. Advocate appearing for the Complainant has urged that the Complainant is a proprietor-cum-Technician of Maa Tara Silicon Industry  and he runs his business for livelihood and self-employment.  He has further urged that on 30.04.12 due to high cyclone, the Chimney of the industry was fully broken and large quantity of raw materials were damaged due to cyclone. The said factory and the Chimney were fully insured with the O.P. Insurance Co. He has further urged that the Complainant submitted total claim before the O.P. Insurance Co. on 16.05.12 amounting to Rs.9,25,000/- as insurance claim but the O.P Insurance Co. did not release any such claim.  So, the case should be admitted and the prayer of the Complainant should be allowed.

Upon hearing the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Complainant and on perusal of the record, it appears to us that the Complainant has clearly and categorically stated in his written complaint that on 30.04.12 due to high cyclone, the Chimney of the industry was fully broken and large quantity of raw materials were damaged due to the said cyclone.  Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the cause of action in this case arose on 30.04.12, when the Chimney of the industry was fully broken and large quantity of raw materials were damaged due to said cyclone held on 30.04.12.

The limitation for the purpose under Section 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986 began to run from 30.04.12 and therefore, the complaint before this Forum against the O.P for deficiency in service, ought to have been filed within two years thereof.  However, the complaint was, in fact, filed on 20.12.18.  Moreover, it appears to us that it is alleged in the written complaint that the factory and the chimney were fully insured with the O.P Insurance Company vide Policy No. 313202/11/2011/285 and Policy No.13202/48/2011477.  The record goes to show that the Complainant has not filed any copy of the Insurance Policies to prove that the alleged factory and the chimney were duly insured with the O.P Insurance Company.

This apart, the Complainant has not filed any papers to prove that immediate after the alleged cyclone, the Complainant informed the same to the local P.S.

This apart, it is alleged in the complaint that the Ld. Lawyer of the Complainant sent a letter to the O.P Insurance Co. by Registered Post on 11.02.17 but till today, the O.P Insurance Co. did not reply the same.  On careful consideration of the said legal notice dated 11.02.17, it is found that the said legal notice was issued in respect of the Policy Nos. 313202/11/2011/285 and Policy No.13202/48/2011477 in the name of Maa Tara Glass Industries,  not in the name of the Factory of the Complainant Maa Tara Silicon Industry.  Therefore, no corroboration nexus is found in between the averment in the petition of the complaint and the legal notice sent by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.

This apart, it is found that the complaint filed on 20.12.18 was also without an application for condonation of delay.  Therefore, it was manifestly barred by limitation.

Under the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the complaint case is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed.

Hence,

It is Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action.  The copy of the Final Order/Judgement also available at www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. MANOJIT MANDAL]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. RUMKI SAMAJDAR]
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.