Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 02.03.2005 in Consumer Complaint No.222/1997 (original Complaint No.13/1996) Bharatkumar Kailashchandra Sarda V/s. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai District (the Forum in short).
(2) The consumer complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent/original Opponent Insurance – New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) by repudiating the claim in respect of the accident involving vehicle (accident took place on 09.02.1990). The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on various grounds inter alia including that it is not a valid insurance policy since it was fraudulently obtained after the accident occurred. The Forum partly accepting the claim, awarded compensation of `1,000/- and `750/- as costs to the Complainant. However, not satisfied with the same original Complainant preferred this appeal. Though the intimation of today’s date of hearing was given to the Complainant by R.P.A.D. on 07.07.2011, he preferred to remain absent. Mr.S.R. Singh, Advocate for the Respondent present.
(3) Heard Mr. Singh, Advocate for the Respondent.
(4) As submitted at Bar, the Insurance Company did not prefer any appeal against the impugned order. In the instant case issue relates to the fraudulently obtaining the Insurance policy for the accident occurred. Basically, considering the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2009 CTJ 951(SC)(C.P), since cause of action arose on 09.02.1990 i.e. the date of accident and the consumer complaint came to be filed in the year 1996, it is clearly barred by limitation and therefore, even what has been granted by the Forum as per impugned order ought not to have been granted. The Forum, as per scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties rightly inferred that the case of insurance Company about fraudulently obtaining the policy after the accident, may be true. The Forum accused the insurance company for deficiency in service only on the ground that it failed to inform the Complainant within a reasonable time about the repudiation. Since the Insurance Company did not appeal, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Certainly, there is no case for grant of more compensation. Thus, we find the appeal devoid of any substance and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) In the given circumstances no order as to costs.
Pronounced on 20th July, 2011.
