Before the District consumers Forum:Kurnool
Present Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Membe
Thursday the 22nd day of April, 2004
C.D.No.6/2002
E.C. Veeranna Goud,
S/o. E. Ramaswamy,
R/o. Vantaridenne (V),
Gonegandla (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his
counsel Sri.G.I.Ahmed
-Vs-
The Divisional Manager,
The United India Insurance Co., Ltd,
Post Box No.45,
40- 493, Upstairs,
R.S.Road, Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his counsel
Sri G. Madhu Sudhan Reddy,
O R D E R
(Smt.C.Preethi, Lady Member)
This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for damages to his vehicle with 18% interest per annum, Rs.20,000/- as compensation, Rs.1,000/- as cost of the complaint and grant any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
The gist of the complaint of the complainant is that the complainant owner of Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No. AP 21-9807, insured the said vehicle under the policy bearing No. 29253 for a total sum of Rs.2,10,000/- and the opposite party is liable for the damages of the vehicle in case of accident. On 21.8.1998 at about 4.30 P.M the said jeep met with accident near Chaduvula Ramaiah’s Colony while proceedings to Yammiganur for his own purpose, as a result the said jeep fell into a ditch and completely damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. Immediately after the accident the complainant informed the opposite party about the accident and the opposite party deputed a surveyor and the surveyor inspected the said vehicle and filed his report. The complainant made several request and demands to entertain his claim for damages but the opposite party repudiated the said claim through its communication dt 13.1.1999 erroneous grounds.
The opposite party even after receiving premium amount from the complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy even after the lapse of 2 years from the date of accident, which is clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite party to the complainant.
The complainant in support of his complaint averment filed his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his complaint averments besides to the followings documents Viz (1) certofoed cp[u pf F.I.R.No. 63/98 dt 21.8.1998 of Gonegandla Police Station and (2) letter dt 13.1.1999 addressed by opposite party to the complainant, the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 and Ex A.2 for its appreciation in this case.
In pursuance to the notice of this Forum of this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through its standing counsel and filed his written version denying the complaint as not maintainable neither in law nor on facts. It admits the complainant jeep insured with the opposite party under policy bearing No. 05110/ 31/001/11/102/29253/1997, and denies the jeep completely damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
It submits that A. Nageswara Reddy, insurance surveyor/ loss assessor attended the damaged vehicle and prepared spot report. Subsequently Mr. M.R. Srinivasan insurance surveyor and loss assessor inspected the said vehicle and submitted final survey report with garage photos and estimated a net loss to Rs.24,000/- only and the same is repudiated by the opposite party for violation of terms and conditions by the complainant. On the date of the accident the said jeep was carrying 14 passengers as per FIR, one person died and 12 persons received multiple injuries as per charge sheet against the driver. The complainant suppressed the said fact and submitted claim forms stating the vehicle was carrying passengers within the capacity.
It further submits that as the complainant violated terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as the passengers travelling are mid-way passengers moreover the complaint of the complainant is time barred one and the complainant is not remaining entitled to any claims as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party to attract the provisions of C.P. Act 1986, and complaint is barred by limitation.
The opposite party in support of its written version filed the following documents Viz 91) attested xerox copy of authorisation of Assistant Divisional manager to Sign Vakalat and affidavits (2) terms and conditions of the policy (3) private and confidential motor- survey report (final) dt 2.12.1998 issued by M.R. Srinivasan Insurance Surveyor (4) private and confidential motor surveyor report (spot) dt 31.8.1998 issued by A. Nageswara Reddy, insurance surveyor (5) post repair inspection report dt 22.12.1998 issued by P. Narendra Kishore Insurance Surveyor and (6) true copy of policy No. 051100/31/061/11/102/29253/1997 of the complainant. The opposite party in support of the above documents filed its sworn- affidavit in reiteration of its written version as evidence, hence the supra documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.6 for its appreciation in this case.
Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite party:
The Ex A.1 repudiation letter addressed by opposite party to the complainant, dates to 13.1.1999 and the date of accident mentioned as 21.8.1998. It repudiates the claim of the complainant, as per the claim forms submitted by the complainant, there were some mid-way passengers cariied in the complainant’s vehicle at the time of the accident, which is contrary to the limitations as per the terms and conditions of the policy, hence the said repudiation. The above repudiation letter dated to 13.1.1999 and the resent complaint before this Forum was made by the complainant on 28.12.2001 which is after the lapse of 2 years 11 months and 15 days.
The complainant alleges the cause of action dates to the repudiation letter of opposite party dt 13.1.1999, this case is filed in this Forum on 28th day of December 2001 from the said repudiation letter, the date of filing this case was about 2 years 11 months 15 days after to the said date of repudiation letter, which the complainant alleges as his cause of action. There being no Order of the Forum condoning the said delay of the period of over and the above two years statutorily prescribed by the Act, in the absence of the any such endeavour on the part of the complainant in seeking the condonation ofdelay, the case of the complainant is remained barred by statutory limitation of two years prescribed under Sec. 24A of C.P.Act 1986. Hence the complaint of the complainant is remaining barred by limitation, therefore it is not necessary to go into the material and to decide the case on merits.
Sec. 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a departure to the well settled Law that a complaint made beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the C.P.Act, 1986 has to be dismissed. A Consumer Forum has to guard itself against the misuse of this provisions.
Hence the result of the above discussion as the complaint is not maintainable for want of limitation the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 22nd day of April, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Certified copy of first information report FIR No. 63/98 dt 21.8.1998 of
Gonegandla Plice station.
Ex A.2 Letter dt 13.01.1999 addressed by opposite party to the complainant.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex B.1 Attested xerox copy of authorisation of Asst. Divisional Manager to Sign
Vakalat and affidavit.
Ex B.2 Terms and conditions of the policy.
Ex B.3 Private and confidential Motor Survey report (final) dt 2.12.1998 issued by
M.R.Srinivasan Insurance Surveyor.
Ex B.4 Private and confidential Motor Survey report (spot) dt 31.8.1998 issued by A.
Nageswara Reddy, insurance surveyor.
Ex B.5 Post repair inspection report dt 22.12.1998 issued by P. Narendra kishore
Insurance Surveyor.
Ex B.6 True copy of policy No. 051100/31/001/11/102/29253/1997 of
complainant.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
