Per Mrs.S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

          This appeal has been filed by org. complainant against the dismissal order dated 05/02/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.142/2009 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Consumer Forum’ for brevity).

          It was the case of the complainant in the District Consumer Forum that complainant had been taking insurance policy for his Boat for the year 2004-05 and 2005-06 and the opponent No.1 had sent the policy documents to the complainant each year.  The complainant states that the Port Authority at Ratnagiri has a rule that no boat is allowed to enter into the sea water unless it is insured and the fishing pass is issued by the said Authority only after the policy document is produced for inspection.  According to the complainant, due to financial difficulties, he did not take boat insurance for the year 2006-07.  However, opponent No.1 communicated directly with opponent No.2 and renewed the insurance policy for the year 2006-07 and the premium was also paid by opponent No.2 out of financial grant sanctioned to the complainant through opponent No.3 and disbursed through opponent No.2.  The complainant stated that neither opponent No.1 nor opponent No.2 informed him regarding taking of the policy and none of them sent policy documents to the complainant.  According to the complainant, it was the duty of opponent NO.1 to send copy of the policy document to him, but it was not sent.  Opponent NO.2/Bank also failed to forward policy document to the complainant.  Due to non-sending of the policy document, complainant could not take his boat out into the sea water and suffered huge loss to the complainant due to non-sending of policy to him by the opponent No.2/Bank.  The complainant stated that the livelihood of the complainant and his family depended upon the sale proceeds of fish and since the boat had to be kept non-operational during the period 2006-07, the complainant and the members of his family had to undergo immense financial difficulties due to deficiency of the opponents.  The complainant admitted that the complainant came to know about the insurance being taken by the Bank only in the month of December 2006 when he met one of the officers of opponent No.2/Bank.  Opponent No.2 had taken insurance policy by paying premium of `3,867/- which was debited to the account of the complainant maintained through opponent No.3.  Therefore, complainant suffered heavy loss due to inability to operate boat in the absence of policy document despite having taken insurance policy by payment of premium through opponent No.2/Bank.  The complainant could have earned an average income of `7,000/- per month during that period, if opponents had given him policy purchased for him for the year 2006-2007.  The complainant had to pay to his sailors who were working with him.  Therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum for deficiency in service.

          Opponent Nos.1&2 filed their written version and contested the complaint.  Opponents pleaded that complainant should have contacted opponent Nos.1&2 to get copy of policy document for collecting fishing pass, but complainant neither contacted opponent No.1 nor opponent No.2 for inquiring about the same.  Complainant is a defaulter of opponent No.2/Bank.   Opponents further pleaded that complainant is having a fishing business getting fish on large scale and also employed employees to help him in his business.  Therefore, complainant is not a consumer within meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          After perusing the documents and affidavits and after hearing all the parties, District Consumer Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation.

          We heard Mr.Subodh Gokhale, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.M.M. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent No.1. 

          The admitted facts between the parties are that the complainant has been taking insurance policy for his boat from opponent No.1 for periods 2004-05 and 2005-06.  According to the complainant, opponent Nos.1&2 had not informed the complainant that the policy for period 2006-07 had been taken from opponent No.1 and the premium amount was paid by opponent No.2/Bank out of financial grant sanctioned by opponent No.3 and disbursed through opponent No.2.  Therefore, complainant/appellant herein could not take his boat out into the sea water for fishing and due to non-availability of policy document, he incurred heavy loss.  According to opponent No.1, complainant has failed to make inquiry with opponent Nos.1&2 regarding issuance of policy.  It is also denied by opponent Nos.1&2 that they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for deficiency in service on their part. 

          We perused the memo of appeal, impugned order and the documents on record and we are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Forum is perfectly correct and sustainable in law.  The complainant/appellant herein admittedly came to know about the issuance of policy taken by opponent No.2/Bank in December 2006.  Therefore, cause of action starts on December 2006 and cut-off date for the complainant to file present consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum is December 2008.  However, complainant has filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum on 08/10/2009 which is beyond the period of limitation.  Therefore, there is no substance in the appeal filed by the org. complainant.  Hence, we pass the following order :-

                   -: ORDER :-

1.       Appeal stands dismissed.

2.       Parties are left to bear their own costs.

3.       Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.