Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 12.08.2010 passed in Consumer complaint No510/2007 (Nivrutti K. Patil V/s. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (‘the Forum’ in short). The consumer complaint stood dismissed and aggrieved thereby, the Complainant preferred this appeal.
(2) The consumer complaint was initially filed against the Insurance Company and later on Respondent/Opponent No.2 Manager, The Kodoli Urban Co.op. Bank Ltd., was impleaded as a party. Fact that on the date of accident there was no valid insurance policy is not in dispute since the policy was not effective as the cheque paid towards premium was dishonoured and not realized. Payment of the premium was accepted subject to realization of the cheque. Thus, the Insurance Company cannot be blamed for repudiating the insurance claim.
(3) As far as contention of the Complainant that the Bank was responsible to take insurance policy, according to written version of the Opponent No.2, viz. Manager Kodoli Urban Co.op. Bank Ltd., cheque of the premium issued which was subsequently dishonoured by the Bank on which it was drawn, was proper and they have discharged their obligation properly by issuing a valid cheque. The cheque was dishonoured on the ground that it was not containing a signature of operator of the account/or signature did not tally. Therefore, in those circumstances, we asked Ld.Counsel appearing for the Complainant as to what was the evidence led since it is the case of the Respondent/Opponent Manager that cheque was issued properly and they cannot be held responsible by way of deficiency in service. Counsel for the Appellant failed to show any evidence led to show any deficiency in service on the part of the Kodoli Urban Co.op. Bank Ltd. or its Manager, who is impleaded as a party. If at all deficiency in service for not taking the insurance in time is to be alleged, then it will be a deficiency on the part of Kodoli Urban Co.op. Bank Ltd.and not on the part of its Manager. Further more when the Bank comes with a case that cheque issued for premium was properly issued but it is the Drawee Bank who is responsible for wrongly dishonouring the cheque, then there must be evidence in rebuttal and which is lacking in the instant case. Thus, as far as deficiency in service on the part of Kodoli Urban Co.op. Bank Ltd. is concerned, no deficiency in service on their part could be said to have been established. The Manager i.e. the Opponent is not a service provider and as such, the case as against him, also fail. Further, it also can be seen that since the Kodoli Urban Co.op. Bank Ltd. is not made a party.
(4) Admittedly, Respondent/Opponent No.2 Manager, Kodoli Urban Co.op. Bank Ltd.,was impleaded later on by moving an application dated 18.11.2009, therefore, as far as this Opponent is concerned the consumer complaint is said to have been filed on 18.11.2011. Therefore, the consumer complaint as against this party is barred by limitation since the cause of action for the consumer complaint arose on the date of accident i.e. on 12.05.2005. Ld.Counsel wants to rely upon the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the matter of United India Insurance Co.V/s. Satrughan Sharma and Others, Reported in 1999 (CCJ) 677 and another decision in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Kishore P. Mastakar, reported in 2003 CCJ 1340. Both the decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case.
(5) For the reasons stated above, we find the appeal devoid of any substance and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is not admitted and stands disposed of accordingly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 17th March, 2012.
