F I N A L   O R D E R

The This is a consumer complaint filed by the complainant Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer directing the opposite party to pay insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of personal coverage of the owner with 9% interest, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

The case of the complainant in short is that the son of the complainant Md. Mohibul Haque was the owner of motorcycle bearing No.WB-60B/0269 and the said motorcycle was insured with the O.P. company vide insurance policy No. 313206/2004/5749, valid for the period from 02.01.2014 to 01.01.2015 with P.A. coverage of sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 24.04.2004 the owner of the said motorcycle, Md. Mohibul Hoque met with an accident and died subsequently at Raiganj hospital. Thereafter, police case has been started at Karandighi P.S. vide case No. 479/2004 U/s 279/338/304(A)/427 of I.P.C.. The father of the complainant informed the insurance company along with documents and repeatedly knocking the doors of the O.P. for making payment of P.A. claim amount to the complainant but the O.P. did not pay heed, finding no alternative the complainant came before this Forum.

The O.P. contested the case by filing W.V.  denying all the allegations of the complainant stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable as there is no cause of action, the complaint petition is barred by limitation, the owner cum driver had no driving licence on the date of accident and pray to dismiss the complaint petition.

To establish the case, the complainant submitted memo of evidence with affidavit, oral evidence and photocopies of documents including original documents as per list.

The O.P. also to prove its case submitted W.V. and cross examined the complainant in oral evidence.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

We carefully perused the petition of complaint, memo of evidences oral evidence of complainant, documents, W.V. and also considered the argument advanced by the both sides. From the petition of complaint and documents it reveals that the son of the complainant, Md. Mahibul Haque was the registered owner of one motorcycle bearing No.WB-60B0269 which was insured with the O.P. company vide policy No.313206/2004/5749 valid up to 01.01.2005 with a personal accident (P.A.) coverage of Rs.1,00,000/- on 24.04.2004 the owner of the motorcycle, Md. Mohibul Haque met with an accident and died subsequently at hospital and police case has been registered as Karandighi PS Case No.479/2004, dated 13.06.2004 U/s 279/338/304(A)/427 IPC. Thereafter, the complainant her husband intimated the incident along with documents to the O.P. for claiming compensation in respect of P.A. policy and subsequently on 29.08.2008 sent a letter through secretary of Raiganj Consumer’s Forum with a request to make payment of P.A. policy coverage amount and in reply of the said letter O.P. replied vide its letter dated 08.09.2008 that this case should be filed at MACT court in the proper Forum. The complainant mentioned in the complaint petition Para No.13 and 14 that the complainant made further correspondence as reminder on 04.08.2010 and cause of action arose on 07.07.2012 but in support of this statement the complainant did not produce any document to substantiate his case.

On the other hand the O.P. raised objection in its W.V. that the case is not maintainable as there is no cause of action of filing this case, the instant case is not  maintainable in this Forum, it is barred by limitation, moreover the driver cum owner had no driving licence on the date of accident and the O.P. also denied the correspondences made with the O.P. in its W.V. and in the cross examination oral evidence of complainant the O.P. put its suggestion that the documents have been procured for the purpose of this case, but the complainant  has failed to prove said statement. The complainant made correspondences with the O.P. on 29.08.2008 and in response to that letter O.P. replied on 08.09.2008 which shows as last date of correspondence. The complainant claimed that she made further correspondences on 04.08.2010 but in support of her statement no document has been produced before this Forum and regarding mentioning the date of cause of action arose on 07.07.2010, there is no explanation from the side of the complainant.

As per Consumer Protection Act, 1986 this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition, which is filed within two years from the date of occurrence and if any case be filed beyond two years then the complainant has to satisfy the Forum to restore to file the case with showing reasonable grounds by filing delay condonation petition. In the instant case no petition for condonation of delay has been filed by the complainant. From the date of last correspondence i.e. on 08.09.2008 by the O.P., this case complainant would have to file on 08.09.2010. But from the record shows that the instant case was filed on 09.06.2014 i.e. after six years from the date of last correspondences between the parties and after ten years from the date of incident which is clearly barred by limitation.

In view of the discussions above we are of opinion that the complaint petition is not at all maintainable as it is barred by limitation and this Forum has no power to entertain this case as it was filed beyond two years from the date of incident and this case also fails for want of cause of action.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the case of the complainant as it was filed beyond statutory period as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hopelessly bared by limitation.

Thus the case being No. CC -55/2014 be and the same is dismissed with contest without cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to each parties free of cost.