BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSURU.

Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1518/2016

Complaint filed on 14.10.2016

Date of Judgement.15.07.2017

PRESENT                                : 1. Shri Ramachandra  M.S.,  B.A., LL.B.,

                                                         PRESIDENT

                                      2. Shri  Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B., 

                                       MEMBER

Complainant/s               :                  KSRTC ., The Mysore Rural

                                                          Transport Division, Bannimantap,

                                                          Mysuru.

                                                         Rep. by its Divisional Controller

                                               (Sri K.S. Mahadeva Prasad., Advocate)

V/s

Opponent        /s                     :       United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

                                                          Chamaraja double road,

                                                          Behind Ramaswamy Circle,

                                                          Mysuru.

                                                          Rep. By its Branch Manager

  (Sri.P.A.Santhakumar., Advocate)

SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S.,

     PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

The complainant filed the complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party and seeking for relief of settlement of claim amount and other relief.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant herein is a body constituted under the Karnataka road transport corporation undertaking  transport wholly owned by the government of Karnataka constituted under the provisions of the road transport corporation act, with a main object to provide efficient, effective economic and co-ordinate passengers transport service to the public at large throughout Karnataka state and outside the state.

3. It is submitted that the complainant has purchased a Volvo Bus bearing registration No. KA-01-F-4462, Engine No 104784090, Chasis No. YV3R6K72098134354*C12 and  year of the manufacturing of the said Bus is 2009.

4. It is submitted that, complainant has obtained a policy with the opposite party for the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No. KA-01-F-4462, vide policy No. 072003/31/11/01/00005058, which was valid for the period from 12.08.2011 to mid night  of 11.08.2012.

5. It is submitted that, the complainant has paid huge amount of Rs.78,325/- with respect to the said policy.

6. It is submitted that the above said bus bearing No. KA-01-F-4462 was operating in the route of 54AB from Mysuru Bangalore on 11.01.2012 on 12.01.2012 while coming from Bangalore to Mysore near Dundu Maramma Temple, Mysore, a Branch from tree fell on the moving Bus, on account of the same, the front wind screen glass of the Bus, window glasses of the bus have been damaged.

7. It is submitted that the complainant has given a claim intimation form on 12.01.2012 itself to the opposite party by intimating the incident and damage to the vehicle. One Mr. Srinivasa Murthy has surveyed the Bus.

8. It is submitted that the complainant got repaired the vehicle by spending huge amount of Rs. 56,373/- and also sought for refund of the amount with respect to the damage that has been caused to the vehicle of the complainant for repairing the damage. The opposite party  neither settled the bill nor replied the notice that has been issued by the complainant.

9. It is submitted that, in fact complainant is a regular customer of the opposite party, as complainant is a corporation and it owns huge number of Buses.

10. Hence the complainant corporation has got issued a notice on 29.06.2013 in spite of the so many reminders have been made to the opposite party, the opposite party has not bothered to settle the insurance amount with respect to the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-01-F-4462.

11. The opposite party neither complied the notice, nor replied the notices, the act of the opposite party is highly illegal, unethical and it amounts to deficiency in service on their part in not settling the claim amount well in time in spite of policy has been given by the opposite party.

12. It is submitted that in spite of deficiency in service that has been rendered by the opposite party, the opposite party has not taken any steps to compensate the complainant. Hence the complainant is constrained to file the present complainant before this Hon’ble court.

13. The cause of action to this complaint arose on 12.01.2012 being the date of incident, subsequently when the complainant has got issued the notices to the opposite party and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court, wherefore pray for allowing the compliant.

14. Notice to the opposite party no.1 and2 duly severed represented by counsel and filed version, they contended that the complaint is barred by limitation . Hence same  is not maintainable and it is liable t to be dismissed and further contended that the complaint is not a consumer under section 2(1) (d) of CP Act as complaint is doing business with fleet of buses for profit for that reason they cannot be considered as consumer.

15. Opposite party further contended there is no deficiency in service on their part as alleged by the complainant. when such being the case the complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. Further opposite party has denied all other allegation of the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

16. The complainant and opposite party have filed chief examination affidavit and documents in support of their contention written arguments filed, oral arguments heard, reserved for orders.

17. Heard arguments.

18. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. What order?

19. Our answer to the above points is as follows;

1. Point No.1: In the affirmative.
2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;

REASONS

20 . Point No.1:-   First and foremost point that the opposite party has pleaded, the point of limitation and vehemently argued that the complaint is not maintainable, as it is barred by limitation.

21. Further opposite party contended that the complainant has specifically pleaded the cause of action to file the complaint arose on 12.01.2012 as per the pleading in the complaint  para 13. Under section 24-A of consumer protection Act  the District forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen 2. Not which standing anything contained in sub section (1) a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub section (1) , if the complainant satisfies the District forum, that they had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District forum, as the case may be , records, its reasons for condoning such delay.” In this complaint , complainant has not made any attempt to explain the delay in this case.

22. When such being the case, if at all, if the complainant is aggrieved he should have raise the issue by filing complaint before the fora well within two years. Instead  of filing the complaint well within in two years for these years he slept over his right, all of a sudden he raises in the year 2013. And issued legal notice to opposite party and takes the contention that the cause of action to file complaint starts from 2013.

23. Mere issuance of legal notice in the year 2013 to the opposite party does not revive the cause of action which was occurred on 12.01.2012 as per the pleading of complainant when he pleads that the cause of action file to complaint is 12.01.2012 he should have filed the complainant well within 2 years from the date of cause of action. Here in this case the complaint is filed after the lapse of limitation period of 2 years i.e,  a delay of 4 ½ years when the delay in filing the complaint is not at all explained for that reason the complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation and it is liable to be dismissed on that ground.

24. Further attitude of complainant establishes that complainant is not vigilant over his right, only after the lapse of limitation he realises and filed the complaint by taking shelter of legal notice as a cause of action. As such the act and omission of complainant, cannot accepted. The issuance of legal notice in the year 2013 does not give new cause of action to the complainant to file the complaint. As per the principles of ruling rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission and Apex Court of India.

25. Further  opposite party has relied on the judgement of Hon’ble. National  Commission, Delhi reported in CPJ 2016 part 4 page no 55 between Sanjay  Vasant Salve V/s ICICI Bank Ltd and another. The principle of this ruling aptly applicable to the complaint on hand. This ruling is on the point of limitation.

26. It is also apparent on the face of records produced, that  it is evident that complainant has kept quite for all these years and suddenly in the 2013 he issued legal notice in order to file the complaint. There is inordinate delay of 4½ years in filing the complaint. When such being the case the complaint filed is not maintainable as it is highly barred by limitation for that reason complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

27. In view of the above observation the point no 1 we answered in the affirmative.

28. From the above discussion we hereby proceed to pass the following :-

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed

2.Give copies of this order to the parties as per rules.

(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed , typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on the 15^th July  2017)  

Shri Thammanna Y.S.,                                 Shri Ramachandra M.S.,    

          Member.                                                          President.