IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 370/09 DATED 27.11.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Puttaswamy Gowda, <br /> S/o late Thimmappa, R/at Chilakunda Grama and Post, <br /> Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District.<br /> (By Sri. D.S.Shivaprakash, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Regional Manager, <br /> The Tobacco Board (Ministry of Commerce Govt. of India), D.CA-5673-C, 14th Main, II Stage, Near Yoga Narasimha Swamy Temple, Vijayanagara, Mysore-570017.<br /> 2. The Manager, The TATA AIG Insurance Company Limited, Khanija Bhavan, 5th Floor, West Entrance, Race Course Road, Bangalore.<br /> (By Sri. B.Paneesh Kumar, Advocate for O.P.1 <br /> and O.P.2 - EXPARTE)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 06.10.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 21.10.2009<br /> Date of order : 27.11.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 6 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties, seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- the insurance amount with interest and damages.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, father of the complainant Thimmappa was Tobacco grower. He was registered with the first opposite party at TBGR No.61099019 dated 23.12.2005. He was selling tobacco to first opposite party. It used to deduct Rs.452/- in order to remit the same to the second opposite party towards yearly premium. Insured amount was Rs.1,00,000/- under the Group Insurance Scheme. Out of the sale of tobacco, first opposite party deducted Rs.452/- and remitted the same to the second opposite party. Father of the complainant died on 06.10.2005. Complainant requested the opposite parties to disburse the compensation amount / policy amount. The opposite parties have not paid the same. There is deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The first opposite party in the version has contended that, the complainant did not submit any claim form for settlement of the insurance amount and hence, the complaint is not maintainable. Also, it is contended that, the complaint is filed after four years from the date of death and as such, complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. The second opposite party despite due service of the notice, has remained absent.<br /> <br /> 5. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit. Whereas for the first opposite party, Regional Manager has filed his affidavit. Certain documents are produced. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 6. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved sufficient cause for the delay in filing the complaint?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of both or either of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : Partly in the affirmative.<br /> Point no.3 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point no. 1:- From the records, it is true that, father of the complainant died on 06.10.2005 and the present complaint is filed on 06.10.209, that there cannot be any dispute that within two years from the date of cause of action, complaint shall have to be filed. In the case on hand, within said period, the complaint is not filed.<br /> <br /> 9. However, learned advocate for the complainant submitted that, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay is filed. In the accompanying affidavit, the complainant has stated that, after the death of the father, he approached the first opposite party many times to get the benefit under the Group Insurance Scheme and on all the times, it was told, shortly the amount will be disbursed. Hence, there is delay in filing the complaint.<br /> <br /> 10. During the course of arguments, advocate for the complainant submitted that, apart from the facts stated in the affidavit by the complainant, admittedly, premium has been paid or deducted and the complainant being an agriculturist and agriculture labour, liberal view may be taken and the delay may be condoned. Considering this submission and the facts stated in the affidavit, in the interest of justice, we feel it just to condone the delay. Accordingly, finding on the above point is in affirmative. <br /> <br /> 11. Point No.2:- Before proceeding to consider the merits, at the outset, learned advocate for the first opposite party submitted that no claim petition was submitted by the complainant and there is no repudiation of the same and as such, there is no cause of action for the complainant and the complaint is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> 12. As could be seen from the facts and the material on record, no specific case is made out by the complainant that, as required by law along with necessary documents, complainant had submitted claim petition and that claim has been repudiated by the opposite parties. Also, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the first opposite party that, if at all claim petition is filed by the complainant, same will be forwarded to the second opposite party Insurance Company etc., Considering the facts, under the circumstances, in the absence of claim petition and there being no repudiation of the same, there is no cause of action for the present case. <br /> <br /> 13. Even though, the opposite party has not taken the contention regarding date of death and registration of the deceased, we noticed that, father of the complainant died on 06.10.2005, whereas he was registered as tobacco grower under TBGR No.61099019 dated 23.12.2005. It is subsequent to the date of death. His registration after death will not arise. However, this fact also should be scrutinized by the opposite parties, if claim is submitted by the complainant. <br /> <br /> 14. However, in the interest of justice, disposing of the complaint with certain observation will meet the ends of justice.<br /> <br /> 15. Accordingly we answer the point partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 16. Point No. 3:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint is disposed with the following direction:-<br /> 1. The complainant is at liberty to submit claim petition along with necessary documents to the opposite parties, which may be considered in accordance with law.<br /> 2. The opposite parties also scrutinize the date of death of the father of the complainant as well as the date of registration.<br /> 3. There is no order as to costs.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 27th November 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />