Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/605/2013

Yashin A Makandar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

V.V.Patil.

12 Jan 2015

ORDER

O R D E R

 

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

 

1.      The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to settle the claim amount, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief  facts of the case are as under:

2.      The case of the complainant is that, complainant is the owner of Cruiser vehicle KA-49 M-0155. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent under the policy 602603/31/09/6100001105 valid from 01.06.2009 to 31.05.2010. That on 20.05.2010 while the complainant and his family was traveling in the said vehicle to attend the marriage ceremony & when the said vehicle was proceeding from Nippani to Anantpur through Madabhavi route the driver of the said vehicle lost control over the said vehicle resulting in the accident. In the said accident the complainant sustained injuries all over his body. The accident was reported to Athani police and the same was registered under Crime No.181/2010. The complainant was shifted to government hospital Athani and thereafter shifted Radhesham Accident & Orthopedic Hospital & Dental Clinic, Athani, wherein the complainant taken treatment from 20.05.2010 to 16.06.2010 as an inpatient and spent more than Rs.1 lakh towards treatment and special diet. Due to the accident the complainant is not in a position to do and attend his earlier works and he lost his earnings. In the month of April 2013 the complainant submitted claim to the respondent. Though the respondents liable to settle the claim, failed to settle the same, it amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.      In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondents taken contention that the very complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts & prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further the respondent also taken contention on the maintainability of the complaint with regard to the fact, deficiency in service, negligence. Among such other admissions and denials the complainant taken specific contention the complainant did not lodged claim hence, the present complaint is pre matured. There is no cause of action for the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further the respondent denied the date of accident, accident in question, injuries caused to complainant, liability of the respondent and prays for dismissal of the complaint contending the claim is false, frivolous, by throwing burden on the complainant to justify the facts of the complaint. Further the respondent reveals in detail the nature of the contract, liabilities and binding of the parties to the contract and strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the policy schedule. Further the respondent taken contention that in terms of terms and conditions of the policy the complainant has not sustained any injuries which are to be indemnified in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy schedule. Hence, the respondents have not committed any deficiency in service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether the complaint is within the limitation period & maintainable ?
2. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
3. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
4. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

 

5.      Both have admits sworn to evidence relied on document.  Heard. Perused the records.

 

Finding on points is as under.

1. Negatively
2. Not sustainable
3. Not sustainable
4. As per order

Reasons

Points 1 to 3

6.      On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties & nature of the complaint this Forum before proceeding to determine the complaint on merits taken issue.1 as preliminary issue for determination.

7.      Since the facts have been discussed in detail which requires no repetition.

8.      Admittedly the incident took place on 20.05.2010. The complaint is lodged on the same day. This fact is evidenced by Ex.C3 complaint, Ex.C2 FIR. As per the own admission of the complainant for the first time claim is made to the respondent on 10.04.2013 as per Ex.C1. The present complaint is filed before this Forum on 28.09.2013 i.e. after 3 years 4 months 8 days. Even otherwise claim of the complainant to the respondent is taken claim application made on 10.04.2013 i.e. after 2 years 9 months 20 days. The complainant approached the respondent as well as this Forum after inordinate delay. No application is filed U/s.24(A) of CP Act. No reason is made out in approaching this Forum after expiry of limitation period. In support of claim of the complainant the complainant relied on one citation 2010 (1) CPR 511-Chattisgarh SCDRC. The relied judgment has no relevancy to the case on hand. So also facts and dictum of both the cases are entirely indifferent and not applicable to this case. Hence, the complaint with regard to the limitation point is not sustainable. Hence, we proceed to held issue.1 negatively.

9.      Since the issue.1 held negatively, issue.2 and 3 are not sustainable.

10.    Point.4: In view of the finding on points 1 to 3 proceeded to pass the following 

Order

The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 12^th day of January 2015)

 

 

 

 

         Member                         Member                         President