BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE:22/01/2016
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 281/2015
Complainant/s: Shri Prakash Buddu Kantrikar,
Age:40 years Occ:Business,
AtPost:Amadalli,Karwar,
District Kanara North,
Karnataka-581301.
(Shri S.M.Patil,Advocate)
v/s
Respondent/s:1) The Regional Manager,
National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Arihant Plaza,Kusugal Road,
Keshwapur,Hubli-580001.
2)The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Karwar Branch Office,
1628,Kaikini Road,
Karwar-581301
(R-1 &R-2 Rep.by Shri R.S.Arani,
Advocate)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.1,41,288/- along with interest @24% till realization, to pay Rs.10,500/- as compensation towards mental agony, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
The case of the complainant is that, complainant is the owner of the Tata 407 passenger vehicle bearing registration no.KA 30- 2737 & the said vehicle was insured with the respondent.1 insurance company through respondent.2 branch office under policy bearing no.602504/31/12/6300000568 covering the risk for the period 17.04.2012 to 16.04.2013. The complainant had also paid Rs.100/- additional premium covering the risk of the owner of the vehicle. In the meanwhile the said vehicle met with the accident in the limits of Hireulligeri of Belgaum. In the said accident complainant grievously injured. Since the complainant has paid premium is entitled for reimbursement of the medical bills. The complainant got issued legal notice to the respondent on 24.08.2015 to settle the bills. In reply the respondent stated, they are not liable to pay the same as per the conditions. Hence complainant approached this Forum claiming the reliefs as sought.
In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondent taken contention that the very complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and concocted and is not maintainable either in law or on facts and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further the respondent taken contention that the entire story built in the complaint is false and far from the truth and also denied the accident and injuries sustained by the complainant and also expenses incurred Rs.1,41,228/- towards the treatment. Further the respondent also taken contention that the Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint contending that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent as the policy was issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy covering the risk. Further the respondent also taken contention that the alleged accident was took place on 09.03.2013. There is no intimation or claim subsequent to it till issuance of the legal notice 24.08.2015 which was issued after lapse of more than 2 & ½ years from the date of alleged incident occurred. Hence the present complaint is barred by limitation and contend it deserves to be dismissed in limine. While the respondent admits issuance of the policy, covering the risk subject to terms and conditions and the policy issued was covered for compulsory P.A. to owner cum driver & further contends as per personal accident to owner cum driver is restricted only to the contingencies described under the policy and there is no liability covering the treatment charges for the injuries. Further the respondent denied and disputes the complainant being an owner was possessing valid DL to drive and even to cover claim under owner cum driver risk,also, taken contention that at the relevant time of alleged accident the vehicle was driven by one Mr.Santosh Govindagowda and not by Prakash Buddu Kantrikar i.e. owner. In all the respondent denying the liability and coverage of the risk claimed by the complainant and on limitation point of view prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
- Whether the complaint as brought is well within the limitation period and this Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate the same ?
- Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
- Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Heard. Perused the records. Finding on points is as under.
- Negatively
- Not sustainable
- Not sustainable
- As per order
R E A S O N S
P O I N T S 1 to 3
On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the complainant is that owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with the respondent covering the risk as per terms and conditions of the policy.
Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.
Based on the issues framed by this Forum inclined to decide issue.1 by considering it as preliminary issue and accordingly proceeds.
On going through the pleadings of the complaint and evidence of PW1 nowhere the complainant has revealed when and on which date the said vehicle in question met with the accident. So also except narration the complainant nowhere stated, when he informed the respondent with regard to the accident and when he actually submits the claim to the respondent. To show the claim of the complainant and also with regard to the fact of accident legal notice Ex.C1 is the only document on record which has been issued on 24.08.2015. Except this no other records with available with regard to the alleged accident. Discharge card Ex.C12 reveals the complainant had admitted to Kshema Orthopedic Hospital Hubli on 09.03.2013 by 7.40 PM and discharged on 27.03.2013. By perusal of the Ex.C12 it reveals the complainant might have met with accident on 09.03.2013 but it do not disclose, how the accident took place, which was the vehicle involved in the accident. But history column of Ex.C12 reveals the injury is due to RTA near Savadatti. The respondent in its written version also admits the date of accident, but no description with regard to the vehicle involved in the accident as discussed supra. The respondent also taken contention that the issuance of notice does not save the limitation as such the complaint is clearly barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed in limine. Even otherwise as rightly framed issue.1 by this Forum, this Forum has to decide the issue.1 before proceeding to decide the complaint on merits. As rightly discussed supra except Ex.C1 legal notice no other documents on record to show that the complainant informed the respondent immediately after the accident and before issuing the legal notice Ex.C1 he preferred claim to the respondent by furnishing all required documents as per terms and conditions of the policy and repudiation of the same by the respondent.Hence only legal notice Ex.C1 do not extend limitation time. That apart complainant also not filed any application U/s.24(A) of CP Act to condone the delay if any in not approaching the Forum within the period of 2 years from the date of cause of action. Admittedly in the instant complaint the cause of action arised on 09.03.2013 the present complaint is filed on 07.10.2015 is highly time barred complaint. In this regard this Forum would like to rely on 2013 (4) CPR 6 NC –V.K.Appliances vs. New India Assurance Co. wherein it is held Letters, notices do not extend time of limitation. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly we inclined to held issue.1 in negative. Since issue.1 has been answered in the negative rest of the issue.2 and 3 are not sustainable.
Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
O R D E R
Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on day of 22nd of Janaury 2016)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
