O R D E R R.Vijayakumar, Member. This petition is filed challenging maintainability of the original complaint as it is hopelessly barred by limitation. (2) The original complaint filed by the respondent in the application claiming compensation for physical injury, mental agony sustained by him because of the deficiency in service of opposite parties. He had also claimed cost of litigation before MACT Kollam and cost of present litigation. Ops entered appearance and filed version. The case was posted for affidavit and evidence. In the meantime, the petitioner filed this petition. The respondent filed objection. Heard both sides. The facts in the original complaint is that the complainant took a comprehensive policy from opposite parties on 08.10.99 in respect of his newly purchased Maruti Omni Van bearing Reg.No.KL-2G 2430 paying a sum of Rs.5,637.00 by way of premium. The policy was valid up to 07.10.2000. As per the conditions of the policy the opposite party is bound to indemnify the complainant against any damages arising out of the said vehicle. The van met with an accident sustained injuries to a two wheeler driver and caused damages to the complainant’s vehicle. The injured in the accident dtd: 02.06.2000 filed an application for compensation before MACT, Kollam as MV (OP) No.2121/2001. Relied on the statement of the opposite party, the Insurance Company in that case the MACT passed an award against the complainant on 17.05.07 directing (3) the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation along with interest. The claimant filed Execution Petition. Only on receipt of the notice in EP 230/07, the complainant came to know that the opposite party Insurance Company played a trick misleading MACT that the policy was not in existence at the time of the accident. The complainant approached OP on several occasions but it was no use. Complainant issued a legal notice on 03.10.08. In the reply notice OP has admitted the existence of policy but not shown courtesy to discharge their legal obligations. The cause of action arises on 02.08.08. the date on which the complainant had received the notice in EP. The opposite party contented that the subject matter of the complaint is beyond the scope of Consumer Forum. The grievance raised by the complainant is relating to an award passed by MACT, Kollam. The legal remedy is available as per statutory provisions of law. Hence issue regarding maintainability of the complaint is to be decided as a preliminary issue. The complainant and his son remained exparte to the proceedings in OP(MV) No.2121/01 due to their deliberate latches and negligence in (4) defending the case. The claim petition filed by the petitioner has not furnished the correct details and policy particulars of the vehicle involved in the accident. The petitioner had furnished the policy no of the vehicle as 2000/2148 instead of furnishing correct policy no.2000/4221. The OP who was the 3rd respondent in that case filed written statement with specific denial. The complainant alone is responsible for the exparte award passed by the MACT, Kollam. The case was posted for affidavit and evidence. IN the meantime the OP has filed this IA challenging maintainability of the complaint. The complainant filed counter affidavit stating that the OP has committed deficiency in service creating circumstances for the loss sustained by the complainant. Heard both sides. No dispute raised by the opposite parties in the original complaint against the fact that they have issued a comprehensive policy in favour of the complainant and had paid Rs.28300 towards the damages for repairing the vehicle due to the (5) accident occurred on 02.06.2000. It is true that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties as defined in section 2(1) (d) of CP Act 1986. The opposite party also bound to indemnify the complainant against the claims arising out of 3rd party injury. The policy was taken on 10.07.99 and the said vehicle was met with an accident on 02.06.2000. The authorized officer of opposite parties assessed repairing charges at Rs.28300/- and it was given to the complainant through cheque dated:13.09.2000 and was cashed on 20.09.2000. The learned counsel for the complainant in the original complaint argued that the cause of action arose as soon as the opposite party denied the existence of Policy. No.2000-4221 in their written statement in OP (MV) No.2121/01. But as per complaint the cause of action arose on 02.08.08, the date on which the complainant had received the notice in EP 230/07 in OP (MV) No.212/01. (6) The complainant had suppressed the fact that the complainant and his son were set exparte in OP (MV) No.2121/01. Even then the opposite parties filed version denying the existence of policy, as the I and II respondents, the complainant and his son would have got a chance to adduce evidence in order to prove the existence of the policy. By filing this complaint, the complainant is trying to fix the burden to prove the existence of the policy upon the opposite parties evading from their responsibility to litigate their own case deli gently and properly. As argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that if the cause of action arose as soon as the opposite party’s denial in their version it was happened on 31st day of October 2002. If so, the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act precisely a period of limitation of two years from the date of accrued of cause of action which in this case is on 02.06.2000. The complainant’s case that the cause of action arouse on 02.08.2008, the date on which the complainant had received notice in EP 230/07 where by got knowledge of award passed against him on the basis of false statement of opposite parties is unsustainable. (7) As a party in OP (MV) No.212/01, the complainant in this case and his son were bound to take part in the litigation and adduce evidence to safeguard their part if they wanted. The complainant cannot blame the opposite party for his lapse. After sleeping over his right, the complainant now cannot contend that the cause of action arouse on getting the notice, in EP/230/07. The intention of this statement is to circumvent the bars of limitation. The complaint is highly belated and barred by limitation. The litigation is untimely, unwarranted and improper. In the result IA is allowed. The complaint is dismissed. Dated this the 30th day of July 2010. K.Vijayakumaran :Sd/- Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/- R.Vijayakumar :Sd/- // Forwarded by Order // Senior Superintendent Date of Filing: 15.12.2008. Date of Order: 30.07.2010 | 
