By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:-
Brief of the complaint:- The complainant has been running a tea shop and Kummatty in front of Sagar talkies, Pulpally. In June 2003 the complainant went to Mananthavady for constructing his house so he could not come to the shop for some days. On 19.06.2001 he came to his shop and found that three gas cylinders and two gas light and other articles were stolen. So the complainant filed a complaint before the Pulpally police. The shop started by taking Rs.25,000/- as loan from the SBI Cappiset. So the Manager SBI has insured all articles with opposite party. After the theft the complainant informed regarding stolen of articles to the opposite party. Due to theft the complainant has lost the articles worth Rs.50,000/- but the opposite party sanctioned only Rs.16,000/- to the complainant and the same sent to the SBI Cappiset branch. The opposite party sanctioned only meagre amount to the complainant. Actually the complainant has to get Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Hence it is prayed that to give direction to the opposite party to give Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
2. The opposite party appeared and filed their version. In the version they stated that the complaint is time barred. Hence it is not maintainable before this Forum. The cause of action took place on 19.06.2003. The complaint filed on 27.12.2011 after 8 years. So it is barred by limitation. In fact the claim submitted by the complainant was processed by the opposite party and assessed damages properly and settled the claim. The complainant accepted the claim amount with full satisfaction. This opposite party is not keeping any documents with respect to a claim for a long period like 8 years. The complaint is filed in an experimental nature without any bonafide. Hence it is prayed that to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost.
3. On considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered:-
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
3. Relief and Cost.
4. Point No.1 :- It is true from the complaint and chief affidavit of the complainant that the theft occurred before 19.06.2003 and he has received an amount of Rs.16,000/- from opposite party. It is clear that the complaint is barred by limitation. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
5. Points No.2 and 3 :- We are not discussing Points No.2 and 3 in detail since Point No.1 decided against the complainant.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No Order as to cost and compensation.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 19th March 2012.
Date of Filing:28.12.2011.
