Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/84/2021

Sri.A.T.Jayaramareddy S/o Thippeswamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Reliance general insurance co ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.K.Veerabhadrappa

07 Oct 2021

ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED ON:22/09/2021

DISPOSED      ON:07/10/2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:84/2021

DATED: 7^th October 2021

PRESENT: -     Smt. H.N. MEENA. B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

 

                        Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.Com., LL.B.,         MEMBER       

                     Smt. B.H. YASHODA.    B.A., LL.B.,       MEMBER

                    

……COMPLAINANT/S	A.T. Jayaramareddy S/o Thippeswamy, Aged about 44 Years, Hosa Mucchukunte, Ramajogihally Post, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District.  (Rep., by Sri. K. Veerabhadrappa.   Advocate)
V/S
….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	1. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Kudla Sangameshwara Orcade No.1, Opp., to I.D.B.I. Bank, B.D. Road, Near K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand, Chitradurga-577 501. 2. The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Limited, 2nd Floor, Opp., to Neelakanteshwara Temple, Janatha Bazar, Chitradurga. 3. The Chief Manager, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Limited, No. 45, Justeez Basheer Ahamed Syed Building, India Floor, Second Line Beech, More Street, Paares, Chennai-600094.

BY SRI. G. SREEPATHI, MEMBER.

-:ORDERS ON ADMISSIBILITY  OF COMPLAINT:-

The complainant has filed this complaint against Op’s 1,2 and 3 and prays before this Commission to direct Op.1 to pay I.D.V. amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- at the time of theft of the vehicle along with Rs.25,000/- towards interest, Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and such other reliefs.

       2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, complainant is the owner of Goods Lorry bearing its No.KA-05 AC 2928. One Sri Ashoka S/o Rangappa aged about 35 years was the Driver having valid driving license. Complainant has made Hypothecation agreement of the said vehicle with Op.2 on 31/12/2015 by availing loan. The period of loan instalment was from 01/02/2016 to 01/01/2019, total 36 months. Op.3 is the Head Office for Op.2.

       3. The said vehicle Driver was parked the vehicle on 31/08/2019 at Jindal High School ground, Madakari Pura Grama, Chitradurga Taluk at about 9 pm by locking the vehicle he came to his House and slept. On next day morning on 01/09/2017 he came to the spot, at that time there was no vehicle. On searching the same the same was not traced with this on 18/09/2017 he lodged a complaint before Jurisdictional Police Station.

       4. After registering the complaint, Police have traced thieves, thieves have sold the vehicle to Gujari Shop at Belagavi for Rs. 2,25,000/- and the said amount was seized by Police and the same was intimated to Op’s by complainant. Complainant was insured the said vehicle with Op.1 and the same was valid from 03/11/2016 to 02/11/2017 and at that time the I.D.V was Rs. 4,70,000/-.

       5. At the time of theft, insurance policy was in existence and valid, with this Op.1 is having responsibility to solve the risk, to solve the said risk complainant informed Op.2 and 3 on 22/03/2018 by submitting related documents. As the policy was valid at the time of theft, complainant sent legal notice through his Advocate on 03/06/2020, to settle I.D.V. of Rs. 4,70,000/- and on acknowledgement of the same by Op.1 on 08/06/2020, they have not replied till date. Complainant has received letter on 05/05/2021 from Op.3 to resolve the risk, Op.1 have not resolve the risk, if Op.1 have resolved the risk, complainant has not received letter, with this cause of action arise for this complaint from the date he received notice from Op.3. Complainant to get his vehicle IDV of Rs. 4,70,000/- approached Op.1 by submitting related documents but they have not settled the same. Again on 19/08/2021 through his Advocate, complainant sent legal notice to Op.1 and in turn till date no reply from them. Cause of action for this complaint arise on 05/05/2021, when Op.3 sent notice to complainant till date insured amount has not been paid to complainant or to Op.2 and 3, with this cause of action arise for this complaint. The above said facts are of complainant.

Observations:-

       6. On perusal of the facts of the complaint and documents produced by complainant which reveals that, the period of insurance Covers from 03/11/2016 to 02/11/2017. Theft Occurred within the validity period of insurance, i.e. on 31/08/2017. Later on lodging of the complaint by complainant, Police have traced the theft and recovered of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The case was registered and the same was before Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM Court, Chitradurga, recovered amount was deposited before the Hon’ble Court in CC No. 334/2019. Complainant has submitted application before the Hon’ble Court for release of the said amount. In this respect complainant has filed complaint before this Commission, vide CC No. 71/2021 on 06/09/2021 by narrating all the above facts, later by using his intelligence when the same was pending for hearing filed advance application along with Application U/o 23 R1 Read with Section 151 of CPC to withdraw the complaint and with a liberty to file fresh complaint on same cause of action. On his application the said complaint CC No. 71/2021 which was closed on 16/09/2021. Again by suppressing the fact that, the complainant has filed application in CC No. 334/2019 for release of deposited amount of Rs 2,25,000/- filed this fresh complaint by claiming IDV of Rs. 4,70,000/- from Op.1, which clearly shows the intention of complainant for claiming double benefit.

        7. Further on perusal of Insurance policy, which is from 03/11/2016 to 02/11/2017, complaint filed on 22/09/2021, with this there is no limitation for filing of this complaint legal notice issued on by the complainant through his advocate on 22/03/2018, 03/06/2020 and 19/08/2021 for settling the I.D.V. of Rs. 4,70,000/-. Complaint filed by the complainant on the ground that legal notice issued to Op’s on above said dates and by considering the said date for limitation, the complainant have filed this complaint. Issue of legal notice consecutively will not enhance the period for filing complaint. As reported in CPR-2017 page No.284, the Hon’ble National Commission has clearly observed and quoted that, by giving subsequent notices, limitation can’t be extended.

       8. Also in this case the amount recovered is before the Hon’ble PCJ (Sr. Dvn.) and CJM Court, Chitradurga, and complainant submitted application for release of the same in CC NO. 334/2019 of Rs. 2,25,000/- which shows that by suppressing the same, he has filed present complaint and he tries to get double benefit which is not admissible.

       9. Complainant counsel have filed Suo Motu writ Petition (Civil) No. 03/2020 of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same is not applicable to this case. Complaint has come forward while filing this complaint by filing affidavit that he was not well at that time to file this complaint within time. To substantiate the same he has not produced any document and the same is only for the purpose of admitting the complaint. 

       10. Hence as discussed above, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission on limitation and accordingly we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission for adjudication on limitation and maintainability, the same is hereby rejected.

 

Lady Member                     Member                      President

Kms.