Kerala

Trissur

op/97/497

O. A. Kochappan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Baby. P. Antony

06 Aug 2008

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. op/97/497

O. A. Kochappan
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Divisional Manager
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. O. A. Kochappan

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. The Divisional Manager

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Baby. P. Antony

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. I. I. Antony



Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The case of the complainant is that the complainant is an insured as per respondent’s insurance policy No.100606/42/01/16/02559/90 in their personal insurance accident. The complainant met with an accident on 20.11.90 and sustained serious injuries. He sustained open fracture to left tibia and fracture of zygomatic bone on right side. He underwent three major operations for debridement and fixation of fractures. Apart from that the complainant was under bed rest for sixteen months. Though the claim was made, it was paid Rs.5000/- only as part payment. But the complainant has incurred Rs.13,371.00 as medical expenses alone. The accident has caused permanent disablement to the complainant. The complainant has approached the company for final settlement, but on 25.4.94 the respondents issued a claim disbursement voucher to the complainant asking to sign it towards full and final settlement of the claim. It was against the terms and conditions. The respondent is willfully withholding the amount due without any reason. Hence this complaint. 2. The version is as follows: The complaint is barred by limitation. The complaint was filed after 3 years. Hence dismiss on that ground only. As per the policy, the complainant is eligible to get only Rs.500/- as one percent of Rs.50,000/-. As per the doctor’s letter he had only 8 months temporary total disablement. Under this head he is eligible for Rs.16,000/- only. Towards the medical expense he is entitled for Rs.4000/- only. He is not entitled for the compensation prayed. Hence dismiss. 3. The first and main point is to be considered is whether the complaint is barred by limitation. 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P10 and Ext. R1. No other documentary or oral evidence. 5. The point: The claim disbursement voucher was sent to the complainant by registered post on 25.4.94. The complainant is also admitted this in para-4 of the complaint. This complaint is filed on 19.6.97. More than 3 years had elapsed. As per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Here there is a delay for 14 months. No application is filed for condonation of delay. Hence this complaint is dismissed. 6. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost and compensation. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 6th day of August 2008.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.