BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT TIRUPATI.
FA.No.322/2010 against I.A.No.117/2009 in S.R.No.874/2009
District Consumer Forum-I, Chittoor
Between
Mr. P. Lakshmu Reddy, S/o.P. Venkata Reddy,
P.L.R. Projects Private Limited,
6-3-667/4, Flat No.502,
Sirimalle Towers, Panjagutta,
Hyderabad.
…Appellant/Complainant.
And
The United Insurance Company Limited.,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Gandhi Road, II Floor,
Madhanapalle, Chittoor District.
…Respondent/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Indus Law Firm.
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri. S. Shravan Kumar.
FA.No.323/2010 against I.A.No.118/2009 in S.R.No.875/2009
District Consumer Forum-I, Chittoor
Between
Mr. P. Lakshmu Reddy, S/o. P. Venkata Reddy,
P.L.R. Projects Private Limited,
6-3-667/4, Flat No.502,
Sirimalle Towers, Panjagutta,
Hyderabad.
…Appellant/Complainant.
And
The United Insurance Company Limited.,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Gandhi Road, II Floor,
Madhanapalle, Chittoor District.
…Respondent/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s, Indus Law Firm.
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri. S. Shravan Kumar
FA.No.324/2010 against I.A.No.119/2009 in S.R.No.876/2009
District Consumer Forum-I, Chittoor
Between
Mr. P. Lakshmu Reddy, S/o. P. Venkata Reddy,
P.L.R. Projects Private Limited,
6-3-667/4, Flat No.502,
Sirimalle Towers, Panjagutta,
Hyderabad.
…Appellant/Complainant.
And
The United Insurance Company Limited.,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Gandhi Road, II Floor,
Madhanapalle, Chittoor District.
…Respondent/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Indus Law Firm.
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri. S. Shravan Kumar
FA.No.325/2010 against I.A.No.120/2009 in S.R.No.877/2009
District Consumer Forum-I, Chittoor
Between
Mr. P. Lakshmu Reddy, S/o.. P. Venkata Reddy,
P.L.R. Projects Private Limited,
6-3-667/4, Flat No.502,
Sirimalle Towers, Panjagutta,
Hyderabad.
…Appellant/Complainant.
And
The United Insurance Company Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Gandhi Road, II Floor,
Madhanapalle, Chittoor District.
…Respondent/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Indus Law Firm
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri. S. Shravan Kumar
FA.No.326/2010 against I.A.No.121/2009 in S.R.No.878/2009
District Consumer Forum-I, Chittoor
Between
Mr. P. Lakshmu Reddy, S/o. P. Venkata Reddy,
P.L.R. Projects Private Limited.,
6-3-667/4, Flat No.502,
Sirimalle Towers, Panjagutta,
Hyderabad.
…Appellant/Complainant.
And
The United Insurance Company Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Gandhi Road, II Floor,
Madhanapalle, Chittoor District.
…Respondent/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.Indus Law Firm.
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri. S. Shravan Kumar
FA.No.327/2010 against I.A.No.122/2009 in S.R.No.879/2009
District Consumer Forum-I, Chittoor
Between
Mr. P. Lakshmu Reddy, S/o. P. Venkata Reddy,
P.L.R. Projects Private Limited,
6-3-667/4, Flat No.502,
Sirimalle Towers, Panjagutta,
Hyderabad.
…Appellant/Complainant.
And
The United Insurance Company Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Gandhi Road, II Floor,
Madhanapalle, Chittoor District.
…Respondent/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Indus Law Firm.
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri. S. Shravan Kumar
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
AND
SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.
Common Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
****
Since a common question of fact and law involved in all these appeals and several complaints have been filed on the very same ground of relief, we are of the opinion that the same can be disposed off by this common order.
The complainant while filing separate complaints claimed compensation for the damages caused to the vehicles in an accident on the ground that the insurance policies are covered the accident occurred on various dates as mentioned in the complaints. Along with the complaints, he filed applications under Sec.24-A to condone delay of 587 days in CCSR.No.874/2009, 914 days in CCSR.No.875/2009, 914 days in CCSR.No.876/2009, 983 days in CCSR.No.877/2009, 987 days in CCSR No.878/2009 , and 956 days in CCSR. No.879/2009 in preferring the complaints on the ground that he was in advanced age and could not move due to spinal cord problem and the doctor advised him to take bed rest, and therefore, the delay has been occasioned.
The District Forum even before admission dismissed the complaints on the ground that when the Insurance Company asked him to file FIR and other documents, the complainant could not furnish them on the ground no FIR was registered as there was no third party damage. He sought the delay to be condoned on the ground that he was a diabetic and had spinal cord problem and could not move from bed. Since the complainant has not filed any document evidencing any of these ailments, the application were dismissed.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred these appeals contending that the District Forum ought not to have dismissed the applications at the stage of admission without any notice. He could not file the complaints as his employee left him without any intimation.
The respondent-Insurance Company resisted the matters by stating that the applications were dismissed on valid grounds. In view of the fact that there was neither documentary evidence nor any other evidence to prove that the complainant was suffering from spinal cord problem, etc. dismissal of the applications is just.
During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant filed an application to receive Medical Certificate obtained by him from S.V.S.Aneesh Hospital, Tirupathi dated 22.09.2011 certifying that the complainant was suffering from chronic backache degenerative disc disease and was advised bed rest and not to travel frequently and avoid prolonged sittings. He was a chronic patient taking treatment from April, 2006.
The learned counsel for the respondent contended that no certificate whatsoever was filed before the District Forum and even in the appellate court. However, today, the complainant/appellant herein filed the medical certificate certifying that he was suffering from backache and other problems.
Exfacie such a document could be filed, however, when he did not allege that he was taking treatment although from the doctor who had issued certificate. Exfacie, on the face value this has been created only to get over the limitation. We can see that the medical certificate was issued by Dr.S.Hari Babu of Tirupathi. Obviously, the appeals have been posted yesterday and the certificate has been obtained from a doctor at Tirupathi, while the complainant/appellant is a resident of Hyderbad and to get over the limitation such a document has been filed.
The learned counsel for the appellant relied a decision in M/s.Zenith Computers Ltd. Vs. Managing Director, New India Assurance Co.Ltd., reported in 2002 (2) ALT 30 (NC) (CPA) for the proposition that when the complainant filed a certificate evidencing the ailment, the same could be taken as evidence to condone the delay.
In the above said decision, the complainant did not even file any application under Sec.24-A and in that context their lordships opined that when no application whatsoever was made the complaint was unsustainable.
However, coming to the facts, the complaint was filed on 07.08.2009 for the cause of accident said to have been arisen on 27.02.2006 (Ref.FA.No.322/2010). When the accident took place on 27.02.2006 , no complaint was filed within two years even from the said date. In view of the fact that the delay not only being abnormal but also beyond the limitation period, we agree with the opinion expressed by the District Forum. We do not see any merits in these appeals.
In the result, al these appeals are dismissed, however without costs.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
Dt:23.09.2011.
Vvr.
