The owner–cum-driver of Indica Car bearing registration No. KA-36/M-5722 is the complainant who suffered injuries in the road accident that occurred at about 9 PM on 10-01-2012 as the vehicle dashed against backside of the lorry parked by side of the road, which resulted in 30% permanent disablement.

2. The complainant preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accident Tribunal, Gangavathi claiming compensation from the Insurance Company in terms of the policy conditions.  The copy of the policy discloses that the complainant has paid Rs.100/- towards personal accident benefits.  The nature of the injury under which company undertakes to pay the compensation is loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or one limb or sight of one eye and permanent total disablement other than those named above.

3.  The claim petition was dismissed by the MAT after contest.  Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint on 17-11-2014 seeking for compensation.

4.  On the date of filing of the complaint, this Forum directed the complainant to furnish a copy of the order in MVC No. 105/2012 which was dismissed by the MAT on 20-04-2014.

5.  On 05-12-2014, copy of the order in MVC No.105/2012 furnished.  IA No.1 filed u/sec. 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.  Pending admission, notice of IA No.1 was sent to the OP.  The notice was served on the respondent on 11-12-2014.  An advocate filed vakalat on 01-01-2015 for the OP.  Objections to IA No.1 not filed inspite of opportunity granted.  As such, we proceed on the material available on record.

6.  In support of IA No.1, advocate appearing for the complainant filed Memo of facts, which reads as follows;

“ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರ ಪರ ವಕೀಲರು ಮಾನ್ಯ ಗ್ರಾಹಕರ ವೇದಿಕೆಗೆ ತಿಳಿಯಪಡಿಸುವುದೇನೆಂದರೆ, ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನ ವಾಹನವು ದಿನಾಂಕ:
10-01-2012 ರಂದು ಅಪಘಾತಕ್ಕೆ ಈಡಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನಿಗೆ ತೀರ್ವ ಸ್ವರೂಪದ ಗಾಯಗಳಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಮತ್ತು ಅದರ ಪರಿಹಾರವನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯುವುದರ ಸಲುವಾಗಿ ಮೋಟಾರು ವಾಹನ ಪರಿಹಾರ ವೇದಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸಿವಿಲ್ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಗಂಗಾವತಿ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದು, ಮಾನ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು ಸದರಿ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ಕೂಲಂಕುಷವಾಗಿ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ತನ್ನ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ಅಪಘಾತದ ಲಾಭವನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯಲು ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ಗ್ರಾಹಕರ ವೇದಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸದೇ ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ತಪ್ಪಾಗಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಎಮ್.ವಿ.ಸಿ. 105/12 ಇದನ್ನು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 24-04-2014 ರಂದು ವಜಾ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.  ಈ ಒಂದು ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣವನ್ನು ಗ್ರಾಹಕರ ವೇದಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲು 11 ತಿಂಗಳು ವಿಳಂಬವಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ.

ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ನಾನು ಮಾನ್ಯ ಗ್ರಾಹಕರ ವೇದಿಕೆಗೆ ಪ್ರಾರ್ಥಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದೇನೆಂದರೆ, ಸದರಿ ಮಧ್ಯಂತರ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ಪುರಸ್ಕರಿಸಿ, ಈ ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿಯನ್ನು ದಾಖಲು ಮಾಡಲು ಅನುಮತಿಯನ್ನು ನೀಡಬೇಕೆಂದು ಕೇಳಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತೇನೆ.”

7.  An application for condonation of delay if any in presenting the complaint ought to have been filed by way of affidavit of the complainant explaining the reasons for not filing the complaint soon after the receipt of copy of the order in MVC No. 105/2012.  That has not been done.

8. Now coming to the facts stated in Memo of facts, we notice that no explanation is forthcoming for not filing the complaint within the limitation period.  In our view, the mentioning of cause of action as the date of judgment in MVC No.105/2012 itself is wrong.

9.  The decision relied upon by the counsel for the complainant reported in 2010 (1) CPR 292 is not applicable to the facts of the case as that case was in relation to a returning of the complaint for presentation before the proper Forum. 

10.  For the above reasons IA No.1 is without merits.

11.  The copy of the order sheet in MVC No.105/2012 discloses that the case was posted for issues on 15-10-2012.  Written Statement was filed on 12-10-2012 denying the liability to pay the amount claimed.  So that must be taken as the date of repudiation of the claim  by the Insurance Company.  Therefore, the complaint filed on 17-11-2014 beyond two years is barred by limitation.  The observations in paragraph 17 and 18 discloses that the claim before the MVC Tribunal was not maintainable.  Therefore, filing the claim petition before the MVC Tribunal itself was wrong and therefore it is not permissible to excuse the time as there was no bonafide claim by mistake in the wrong Forum.

12.  Perusal of term providing in the policy relating to Personal Accident Cover for owner/driver, clearly reveal the conditions for payment of compensation.  In this case, owner-cum-driver had suffered only 30% bodily injuries as per medical certificate furnished by him.  Hence there is no point in admitting case for further consideration.

13.  Because of that has been stated above, the complaint stand dismissed at the stage of admission.