Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/505/2014

Hanumanth Y Ajjannavar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Divisional Manager. New India Assurance Cmpy Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Patil.

11 May 2015

ORDER

O R D E R

Smt. S.S. Kadrollimath, Member,

1.      The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to settle the claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief  facts of the case are as under:

2.      The case of the complainant is that, complainant is the owner of Bajaj Motor Cycle vehicle KA-22 EG-1012. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent under the policy No.15120131110100001477 valid from 23/4/2011 to 22/4/2012. That on 19/6/2011 while the complainant and his friend was traveling in the said vehicle, met with an accident at about 1.30 to 2.00 AM on Yeragatti Munoli road, which resulting substantial damage to the vehicle and also causing injuries to the complainant and his friend Sri. Sanju D. Madar. The accident was reported to Soudatti police and the same was registered. The complainant and his friend immediately rushed to Dr. R.B. Patagundi’s Sukh Shanti Poly Clinic Gokak wherein he was in patient and spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards medications.  

          The complainant also filed the complaint and furnished his statement on 15/6/2011. The said vehicle was being insured with respondent Company the complainant intimated the accident to immediately to the respondent. Though the respondents liable to settle the claim, failed to settle the same, it amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.      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 respondents taken contention that the very complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts & prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further respondent contended that the complaint is barred by limitation. The complaint is filed after more than 3 years of the alleged accident is beyond period of limitation as required under the law. Further contents that the complainant also not filed application for delay condition.  In view of the same, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as not sustainable under the law.

          In para No.2 of the objection the respondent further contended that the complainant neither intimated the accident nor he has submitted the claim form to the policy issuing branch office or the respondent within the stipulated period. There is no cause of action for the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Hence, the respondents have not committed any deficiency in service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether the complaint is within the limitation period & maintainable ?
2. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondent ?
3. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
4. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

5.      Both have admits sworn to evidence relied on document.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Negatively
2. Negatively
3. Not sustainable
4. As per order

Reasons

Points 1 to 2

6.      On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties & nature of the complaint this Forum before proceeding to determine the points No. 1 and 2.

7.      Since the facts have been discussed in detail which requires no repetition.

8.      Admittedly the incident took place on 19/6/2011. The complaint is lodged on the same day. The present complaint is filed before this Forum on 16/7/2014 i.e. after approximately 3 years. The complainant approached the respondent as well as this Forum after inordinate delay. No application is filed U/s.24(A) of CP Act. No reason is made out in approaching this Forum after expiry of limitation period. The complainant submitted that the complaint is within limitation there is continues cause of action because the complainant had filed motor accident claim before IV Additional District Session Judge Belgaum i.e., MVC No.513/2012 which came to be disposed on 8/3/2013 and same was dismissed to the liberty to approached appropriate forum. The complainant argued that as the petition is dismissed in the year 2013 the complaint filed is well within the time. The another point to be considered is that the policy has been issued by the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Kolhapur Branch, Maharashtra. The complainant had made a Belgaum branch as the only party to the complaint to show the jurisdiction to the forum. But the complainant has not produced a single document to show that the respondent branch has dealt anything with regard to the policy in question with the complainant nor the premium is paid through the respondent in the present case. Hence the complainant utterly failed to prove the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The 3^rd point to be considered that the complainant has not produced any document to show that he has made any claim to the respondent and the respondent has rejected his claim. On this count also the complaint is not sustainable. Apart from this fact that the complainant has not moved a claim form before the respondent. This fact has been contended in the affidavit of the respondent. Further the delay has not been explained by the complainant in he complaint nor a separate application has been moved to condone the delay.

          The another contention of the respondent is that the complainant is not holding a valid driving licence and effective driving licence which amount to a clear breach of policy conditions.  Considering the facts and materials on record and argument placed by both the counsels the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable on the point of the jurisdiction as well as on limitation. Hence, the point No.1 and 2 held negatively.

          9.      Since the point No.1 and 2 held negatively, point No.3 is not sustainable.

10.    Point.4: In view of the finding on points 1 to 3 proceeded to pass the following;

: Order :

The 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 11^th day of May 2015)

         Member                    Member                    President

 

gm*