JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that deceased Dayasankar Pal being the unmarried son of the complainant during his life time had purchased a Policy of Insurance being No.313303/2006/7928 in his own name in connection with any sort of liability as owner relating to Vehicle No. WB-25A-1681 and the same to be indemnified by the ops themselves jointly and severally.

          On 30.01.2006 in the early morning local people of Govindapur saw and detected that a dead body is found lying by the side of National High Way No.2 Bye-Pass near Barsul P.S. under District Burdwan.  Subsequently the dead body was identified later on by the complainant as Dayasankar Pal by unmarried son of the complainant and under the convenient of Policy of Insurance being the insured of the ops.  Insured Dayasankar Pal was practically proceeding from Kolkata on the way to Barsul and he was murdered by some unknown miscreants on the way to his destination and the said unknwos miscreants fled away with the said truck after killing the insured Dayasankar Pal and leaving his dead body by the side of the road.  Dead body of Dayasankar Pal/insured was taken away to Burdwan Medical College & Hospital where post-mortem was held and the P.M. No. is 120 dated 30.01.2006.

          But Burdwan P.S. also started a specific case u/s 302/201 of I.P.C. and the said case was registered as Burdwan P.S. Case No. 80/2006 dated 30.01.2006 and thereafter police started enquiry and closed their investigation and filed Final Police Report before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Burdwan.  Complainant stated that from the date of occurrence although ops are well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case but they did not take any endeavor to satisfy the own damage claim to the complainant being the father of the insured.

          Though complainant is an old and very infirm person still however made several representations before the ops for having his claim lawfully satisfied as complainant is entitled but ops did not respond.  Though there was no reason for non-settling the said claim and ops are intentionally with holding the claim of the complainant without showing any reason whatsoever.  In the above circumstances for the fault and default on the part of the complainant, but purely due to deficiency in service on the part of ops jointly and severally complainant has been suffering much and as yet the claim amount has not been delivered for which the complainant has been suffering irreparable loss and sufferings.  In the above situation the cause of action arose and complainant appeared before this Forum for redressal when cause of action arose on and from the date of incident i.e. 30.01.2006.

          On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that the petition is barred by limitation under the provision of C.P. Act and the Ld. Lawyer for the op stated that the case has no jurisdiction to entertain of the instant case because the address of the complainant as well as the address of the Policy Issuing office are not within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum as such this instant case is liable to be rejected.  Further it is submitted that complainant is not a consumer since complainant did not disclose that he is the only legal heir, representative and the beneficiary of Dayasankar Pal and moreover complainant has failed to prove that he is only legal heir of the deceased according to the law and as such the question of deficiency of service on the part of those ops does not arise.  Moreover complainant has not produced any relevant documents for the vehicle in question bearing No. WB-25A-1681 such as Registration Certificate, Permit, Tax Token, Fitness Certificate and Insurance Certificate/Policy in support of his alleged claim before those ops as well as before the Ld. Forum according to law and as such the question of deficiency in service on the part of ops does not arise and for which the present complaint should be dismissed.

                                                      Decision with reasons

          In the present case after considering the complaint and written version including the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the policy No. 313303/2006/7928, it is found that the said policy was valid from the period from 12.02.2005 to midnight of 11.12.2006 and Personal Accident Coverage amount is Rs. 2,00,000/- for owner-cum-driver.  Truth is that the complaint was filed on 09.01.2014 whereas the incident took place on 30.01.2006.  Further considering other documents i.e. Post Mortem Report dated 30.01.2006, it is clear that Dayasankar Pal had been murdered and his death was homicidal in nature and it is also proved from the police papers that his dead body was found on the road side of NH-2, Bye Pass within the jurisdiction of Barsul P.S. on 30.01.2006 and it is also a fact at the relevant time he was proceeding from Kolkata by driving his own vehicle bearing No. WB-25A-1681 and from the Final Police Report submitted by the police.  It is clear that some unknown miscreants murdered Dayasankar Pal and took away the said vehicle and that vehicle is also not available after that and in respect of that vehicle another CC. No. 1177/2008 was filed on 19.12.2008 and that was disposed of on 04.12.2013 and in that case also complainant claimed death benefit of Dayasankar Pal and in respect of which complaint was allowed and Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest for Personal Accident Coverage was granted and truth is that op already paid that amount which has been deposited to this Forum. 

          Now in this case complainant has prayed for damage in respect of vehicle bearing No. WB-25A-1681.  Practically op has submitted that the present complaint is filed on 09.01.2014 whereas the entire incident took place on 30.01.2006 and for the sake of the argument it is accepted that the FRT was submitted by the I.O. but same was submitted on 28.02.2007 and this is the vital date practically from that date cause of action arose.  But complainant filed other claim cases in the year 2008 in respect of same same incident against claim for Personal Accident Coverage of Dayasankar Pal and that case was recorded as CC No. 1177/2008.

          In fact in the eye of law the present complaint ought to have been filed by or within 28.02.2009.  But complainant did not file this complaint within two years from the date of cause of action which means on and from 28.02.2007. Another factor is that complainant did not file any claim application filed all documents before the op in respect of the claim for damage of the said vehicle.  But in respect of the coverage of the owner-cum-driver that claim has been allowed by this Forum in respect of the complaint Case being No. 1177/2008.  So, it is clear that complainant was aware of the fact that his present claim application ought to have been filed within the date of 28.02.2009 but that was not filed.

          Moreover after scanning the record, it is found that this case was filed on 09.01.2014 but no application has filed for condonation of delay as per provision of Section 24A of C.P. Act 1986.  So, apparently the present complaint was filed after lapse of 6 years from the date of closer of limitation period for filing this complaint.  When that is the fact then it is clear that as per mandatory and statutory provision of Section 24A of C.P. Act 1986, the present complaint is barred by limitation and at this stage there is no scope on the part of this Forum to consider such a complaint which is barred by limitation u/s 24A of C.P. Act 1986 and op has raised this point vehemently at the time of argument.  But we have gathered that this complaint was filed by the complainant when he got a decree in respect of same same incident in respect of Personal Accident Coverage and owner-cum-driver on 04.12.2013 and after getting that relief this complaint was filed.  So, it is clear that it is an admitted fact on the part of the complainant to get further relief by suppressing the limitation matter which was in the knowledge of the complainant’s lawyer because the same lawyer contested the previous case also.  But it was not in his mind what would be the fate of the previous case.

          No doubt such a practice on the part of the consumer is intolerable.  Now we have realized that this matter has not been challenged by the complainant’s Ld. Lawyer.  In the light of the above observation and considering all the above fact, we are convinced to hold that complainant never submitted any claim application in respect of the damage of vehicle (which was stolen by  some unknown miscreants) since 30.01.2006 or since 28.02.2007 (from the death of filing submission of charge sheet) and no other documents was filed before the op authority which is proved beyond any manner of doubt.  So, there is no laches and negligence on the part of the op.  But all laches on the part of the complainant is well proved beyond any manner of doubt.

          In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law in view of the fact that present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation u/s 24A of C.P. Act 1986.

          Thus the complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

                                                             ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost against the ops on the ground that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation u/s 24A of C.P. Act 1986.