Tripura

West Tripura

CC/70/2016

Smti. Kajal Rani Sarkar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Miss. P. Ghosh, Mr. S.Majumder, Mr.R.das.

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 70 of 2016 

Smt. Kajal Rani Sarkar,
W/O- Sri  Haricharan Sarkar,
Chachuria, P.S. Sidhai,
West Tripura.                ..…..…...Complainant.

             VERSUS

The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Agartala Division, Agartala,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
West Tripura.                ............Opposite party.

                 __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant    : Sri Sanjib Majumdar,
                      Sri Rupak Das,
                      Smt. Payel Ghosh,
                      Advocates.
                     
    For the O.P.             : Sri Basudev Chakraborty,
                      Advocate.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   18.01.2017

 

J U D G M E N T

        This case is filed by one Kajal Rani Sarkar U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act claiming compensation Rs.1,72,000/- against the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Petitioner's case in short is that on 22.10.11 the vehicle of the petitioner, Tata Indica met an accident at Lembuchera when a truck dashed the vehicle. As a result the truck was completely damaged. After accident the vehicle was repaired  by the Niladri Motors, Kashipur garage. Estimated cost of repairing was Rs.1,00,006/-. Petitioner claimed the amount from the Oriental Insurance Company, opposite party. The claim was repudiated on the plea that the policy did not cover it. Petitioner filed the case before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. The claim was dismissed and direction given to file complaint before the Consumer Forum. Accordingly he filed the case in the year 2016. 

2.        O.P. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. appeared later on, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that the claim is barred by limitation U/S 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. 

3.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties we shall now determine the following points:
        (I) Whether the claim of the petitioner is bared by limitation?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation?

4.        Petitioner produced original Insurance Policy, Mechanical Inspection report, original Estimate, repudiation letter, photocopy of Driving License. Also examined one witness.

5.        O.P. on the other hand produced the certified copy of policy, letter of repudiation, Private Car Package Policy. Also examined one witness, Sri Goutam Banik, O.P.W.1.

6.        On the basis of evidence we shall now determine the points.
Findings and decision the points:
7.        It is admitted fact that the accident occurred on 22.10.11. Claim submitted before the Oriental Insurance company on 30.01.12. The claim was finally repudiated by the O.P., Oriental Insurance Company on 17.02.12. Cause of action arose on 17.02.12. But this petition filed before this Forum on 05.09.16. Definitely it is time barred as per section 24-A of the Consumer Protection. The petition is to be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. But it was not filed on the ground that the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal advised him to file the complaint before this Forum. No Tribunal or court has the authority to extend the period of limitation as determined by the statute. So, it is clear that the claim is barred by the limitation.
            
8.        We have gone through the policy certificate issued in favour of petitioner. From the policy certificate it is clear that for own damage there was no coverage. No premium paid by the petitioner covering the damage of the vehicle. Without paying any premium for own damage as per 'Schedule A' petitioner can not claim any compensation in respect of damage of vehicle or in respect of repairing of vehicle. Claim is not covered by the policy. So the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation.

9.        It is decided that the claim is time barred and not covered by policy. So, O.P. Insurance company rightly repudiated the claim. There is no deficiency of service. Petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation. Both the points are decided against the petitioner accordingly.

10.         In view of our above findings over the points this petition is dismissed. Parties are to bear their own cost. 
                 
                       Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.