BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 7/11.
THIS THE 14th DAY OF JUNE 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- K. Vadirajachar S/o. K. Krishnachar, Age: 55
years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 1-11-546, Nijalingappa Colony, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Katkam Kristiah Complex, City Talkies Road, Raichur.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Adoni.
3. The Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd., Regional Office, No. 6-3-871, Snehalatha Building Green Lands Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad- 560 016.
CLAIM : For to pay an amount of Rs. 2,66,476/-
towards vehicle damage, to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental sufferings with cost.
Date of institution :- 02-02-11.
Notice served :- 25-02-11.
Date of disposal :- 14-06-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. Mallangouda, Advocate.
Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 represented by Sri. Vikram Nair, Advocate.
Opposite No-3 Ex-parte.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant K.Vadirajachar against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 Insurance Company Ltd., U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to pay an amount of Rs. 2,66,476/- towards vehicle damage, to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental sufferings with cost.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, he is the owner and RC holder of Mahindra Bolero bearing Registration No. KA-05/MB-2069, which was insured with opposites Insurance Company for a period from 01-06-2005 to 31-05-2006. The said vehicle met with an accident on 11-10-05 in Anantapur, A.P., damaged vehicle got repaired by spending an amount of Rs. 2,66,476/-. After the accident, he submitted claim petition with all the documents pertaining to repairs of the vehicle to opposites, but opposites not settled his claim In the mean time, he was bed ridden and unable to move from the place where he was lying due to neuro and spinal chord problems, thereafter, he approached Ombudsman as directed by the opposites, but he not settled his claim by directing him to approach Regional Manager of the opposite Insurance Company, accordingly, he approached Regional Manager, but his requests was not considered and thereby, he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it, with IA-1 U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay in filing this complaint.
3. Opposite Insurance Company appeared through Advocate, filed written version by contending that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the complaint as accident took place in A.P. policy purchased by him in A.P., he is permanent resident of A.P., as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case of complainant. It further contended in the objection to IA-1 that, this complaint is barred by limitation. Reasons assigned by him, in IA-1 are not proper, sufficient and good grounds to condone the delay in filing his complaint.
4. It is admitted fact that, the complainant is the owner of the said vehicle and it met with an accident near Anantapur in A.P. while Insurance Policy was inforce. Thereafter Insurance Company appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss of the vehicle and submitted his report. Complainant not produced any documents to settle his claim as requested, hence his claim was repudiated by its letter dt. 24-01-07. All other allegations made by the complainant against Insurance Company are specifically denied and prayed for to dismiss the IA-1 and complaint among other grounds.
5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant has made out proper, sufficient and good grounds to condone the delay in filing his complaint, as prayed in IA-1.?
2. Whether this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint.
3. Whether the complainant proves the fact of negligence on the part of the opposites for to settle his claim and thereby all the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?
5. What order?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In Negative.
(2) In Negative.
(3) In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we have not discussed and decided the case of complainant on merit.
(4) In view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, the complainant is not
entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.
(5) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 to 4, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
7. To prove the case of complainant, his affidavit-evidence was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-34 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of the Branch Manager of opposite Insurance Company was filed, he was noted as RW-1, affidavit-evidence of surveyor and loss assessor was filed, who is noted as RW-2 and his survey report is marked as Ex.R-1.
POINT NO.1:-
8. IA-1 was filed by the complainant for to condone the delay of (2) years (14) days in filing his complaint. This fact was denied by the opposite Insurance Company by contending that, there was a delay of (4) years and some days, as such this application is not maintainable, as no proper, sufficient and good grounds made out by the complainant to condone the delay in filing his complaint.
9. In the light of the documentary and affidavit-evidences of the parties, we have to see as to whether, the complainant has made out proper, sufficient and good grounds to condone the delay in filing this complaint, as per requirements of section 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act.
10. In pursuance of the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant and opposites, we have noted the following reasons mentioned by the complainant in IA-1 to condone the delay namely:
The first contention of the complainant in IA-1 is that, opposite rejected his claim on 17-01-07 on unsustainable grounds. During those days, he was suffering from neuro and spinal chord problems since 2006, hence he was not able to furnish the necessary documents and also to follow up his case with opposites.
The second ground urged in his application is that, he requested the opposites through his letter dt. 24-01-07 and thereafter through another letter dt. 24-03-08 and as per the instructions of opposites, he approached the ombudsman vide his letter dt. 20-04-10, the said ombudsman directed him to approach Regional Manager. Hence he approached the Regional Manager on 04-06-10 and on 22-06-10 his requests was rejected accordingly, there was a delay in (2) years (14) days in filing his complaint.
11. In support of the above said contentions, he relied on a ruling reported in (1) 1994(3) CPJ 70 (NC)(citation not furnished) (2) 1990 STPL 1717 NC (citation not furnished) and (3) 1994 STPL (LE-Civil) 6005 Gujarat (citation furnished).
12. The learned advocate for opposites contended that, the above said grounds are not proper, sufficient and good grounds to condone the delay of (4) years some months in filing the complaint, as the claim of the complainant was rejected by its letter dt. 17-01-07. Hence, the documents produced by the complainant are not helpful to him and thereby, he requested us to reject the IA-1 and complaint, as it is barred by limitation. In support of this submission, he relied on the ruling reported in 2010 CJ 1152 (NC) Quality Silk Processor Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
13. We have gone through the entire pleadings of the parties and facts stated in IA-1 with objections and documentary evidences, and we have no doubt to say that, the cause of action arisen to this complaint was on 17-01-07, as his claim was flatly repudiated by the Insurance Company through its letter dt. Ex.P-3, but not on 22-06-10 when opposite No-3 rejected his claim for second time. As per section 24(A(1) of C.P. Act. complaint has to be filed within two years from 17-01-07 but he filed this complaint on 04-02-2011 that means complaint not filed this complaint before the Consumer Forum within the mandatory period of two years as prescribed U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act.
14. As per section 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act, the delay in filing in complaint can be condoned, if sufficient cause shown by complainant for such delay. Now, it is well settled law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble National Commission, as requirements of section 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act should not be viewed with hyper technically.
15. Keeping in view of this settled position of law and also the principles of the rulings referred on both sides, now, we have to appreciate the case of complainant, as to whether, he made out proper sufficient and good grounds to condone the delay of (4) years and some days that is from 17-01-07 to till filing this complaint on 04-02-11 or two years 14 days as prayed in IA-1.
16. The complainant stated above the said reasons for to condone the delay, the first ground is on medical grounds, the second set of grounds as he choosen to get decide his dispute with ombudsman, but it was not settled, the Regional Manager was also not settled his claim, hence there was a delay in approaching this Forum.
17. In the light of such grounds, the sufferings of complainant from neuro and spinal card problems was in the year 2006 supported by medical records Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-21 pertaining to the year of 2006 are not helpful for him to condone the delay, as those records are not relevant for the purposes of the deciding health problems of complainant after 17-01-07.
18. Now, coming to other documents filed by him are at Ex.P-22 Bone Density Report dt. 21-02-08, Ex.P-23 & Ex.P-24 Test Reports are pertaining to the years 2009 and 2010. Similarly Ex.P-27 to Ex.P-31 are the medical records for the years 2010.
19. We have taken note of all the above said medical records with dates of the treatment taken by the complainant, we are of the view that, the above said medical records are not sufficient to show that, the complainant was bed ridden since the date of repudiation i.e, from 17-01-07 or 24-01-07 till filing this complaint to condone the delay.
20. The correspondences made by the complainant with ombudsman or with the Regional Manager till the date of filing this complaint are not at all helpful for him to enlarge the period of two years from the date of cause of action i.e, 17-01-07 till date of filing this complaint. In this regard we have referred a rulings reported in 2003(2) CPR 81 (NC), K.G. Kumaran V/s. Dr. Shantasetti and Ors and also the judgment Hon’ble State Commission of Lucknow reported in 2000 (1) CPR 296, Mark International V/s. Bank of India & Ors.
21. By taking note of all these facts and also from the principles laid down by their lordships of the rulings referred above, we are of the view that, the above medical records are not at all helpful for the complainant to get condonation of delay of (4) years some months or at least (2) years (14) days as prayed in this application.
22. Another contention that was submitted before us is that, complainant approached Ombudsman to settle his claim, according to his direction, he approached Regional Manager of opposite Insurance Company, as such there was a delay and thereby, he want to take the help of their ruling referred by him as noted above. We are of the view that, this contention of the complainant is not correct. It is misconceived section 3 of the C.P. Act clearly states the purpose of this enactment, approaching Ombudsman by the complainant cannot be construed, as he approached wrong Forum, he approached right Forum, but he did not get any kind of reliefs from Ombudsman. Even, if he approached Ombudsman even then there was no bar for him to file this Consumer Complaint. In view of section 3 of the C.P. Act., As such, we rejected this contention of the complainant for condone the delay.
23. All other grounds urged by the complainant with regard to reasons for to condone the delay as prayed in IA-1, are not at all helpful for him to condone such delay and thereby, we come to conclusion that, this complaint is barred by limitation, accordingly IA-1 is liable for rejection and thereby it is rejected and answered Point No-1 in Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
24. The learned advocate for opposite seriously contended before us that, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint. According to him, the complainant is ordinarily residing in Anantapur, (AP State), he got insured the vehicle from one of the offices of opposite Insurance Company in Adoni. The accident took place in Anantapur, (AP). Mere the existence of one of the offices of opposite Insurance Company will not bring jurisdiction of this Forum to try the subject matter of the complaint and thereby he prayed for to reject the complaint. In support of this submission, he relied on a ruling reported in 2010 CJ 873 (AP) A.Savithri & Others V/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., & Others.
Their lordships of the AP State held as under:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986__Section 11__Complaint__Maintainability__Dismissal of complaint by District Forum on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction__Insurance Policy was taken by OP as a group insurance to cover risk of all devotees including deceased husband of complainant__Cause of action has not arisen anywhere in A.P. State__Claim was repudiated on ground that death was not due to any accident__Entire cause of action had arisen only within Courts situated in Kerala State__ Merely because Insurance Company is having its divisional office carrying on similar insurance business it cannot be said that a part of cause of action arose at Kurnool where Divisional Officer is situate and so local Courts have jurisdiction to entertain it__No infirmity in impugned order__Revision petition dismissed.
25. On the other hand, the learned advocate for complainant referred section 11 of the C.P. Act and contended that, one of the Branch offices of opposite Insurance Company is situated in Raichur and complainant is also residing in Raichur, as such this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the complaint.
26. In pursuance of the submissions made on both sides, on this point, we have gone through section 11(2)(1) of C.P. Act, which is the relevant provision to decide this point. The Hon’ble A.P. State Commission has decided similar cases with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum in reference to a ruling of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in III 2005 CPJ 90 (NC) Prakash AIR Park Pvt. Ltd., V/s. Vidia (India) and observed that, “merely because Insurance Company is having its Divisional Office carrying on similar insurance business, it cannot be said that a part of cause of action arose to the complainant in some other places to entertain his complaint”. Keeping in view of the principles of the ruling referred above, and of the Hon’ble National Commission, we are of the view that, the subject matter dealt in the above said case is similar to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the instant case also the accident took place in Anantapur, A.P. vehicle was insured in Adoni, (AP) and complainant is resident of A.P. in such circumstances, irrespective of the fact that, the opposite Insurance Company might have Branch Offices in Raichur, but the totality of the circumstances goes to show that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint, accordingly we rejected the contention of the complainant that, this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint, accordingly this Point is answered in Negative.
POINT NO.3:-
27. This point is touching to the merits of the cases of the parties, but the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission in Quality Silk Processor Private Ltd., V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2010 CJ 1152 (NC), we are not competent to decide this case on merits, for the reasons that, this Forum has not only having no territorial jurisdiction but also, this complaint is barred by limitation, accordingly, we have not discussed the case on the merits and thereby, it is answered accordingly.
POINT NO.4:-
28. In view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, the complainant is not entitled for any of the relief’s by this Forum, as prayed in his complaint.
POINT NO.5:-
29. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 to 4, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
IA-1 filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act is dismissed. Consequently the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as it is time barred.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 14-06-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
