Skip to content


Digambar Vs. the Branch Manager, Auto-tieup Branch, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 218 of 2014 In Complaint Case No. 115 of 2014
Judge
AppellantDigambar
RespondentThe Branch Manager, Auto-tieup Branch, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Excerpt:
.....the appellant is hereinafter referred as the œcomplainant? and the respondent as the œopponent insurance company?) 2. brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, complainant shri. digambar was the owner of vehicle i.e. tata safari jeep bearing no.mh.22-h-4590. it was insured with the opponent insurance company. on 10.10.2009 the insured vehicle is stolen away and thereafter immediately the complainant informed the incident to the police as well as opponent insurance company. the police made investigation but the vehicle was not found. therefore the complainant submitted insurance claim with the opponent insurance company. however the opponent insurance company vide letter dated 06.06.2011 informed the complainant that the claim papers are closed, as the required.....
Judgment:

S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member:

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.03.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad dismissing consumer complaint No.115/2014. We heard Shri. P.M. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the appellant and we have decided to dispose of this appeal at the stage of hearing before admission. (for the sake of brevity the appellant is hereinafter referred as the œcomplainant? and the respondent as the œopponent insurance company?)

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, complainant Shri. Digambar was the owner of vehicle i.e. Tata Safari Jeep bearing No.MH.22-H-4590. It was insured with the opponent insurance company. On 10.10.2009 the insured vehicle is stolen away and thereafter immediately the complainant informed the incident to the police as well as opponent insurance company. The police made investigation but the vehicle was not found. Therefore the complainant submitted insurance claim with the opponent insurance company. However the opponent insurance company vide letter dated 06.06.2011 informed the complainant that the claim papers are closed, as the required documents are not supplied etc. Thereafter according to the complainant he made correspondence with the opponent insurance company and as no response was given lastly on 23.04.2013 he gave legal notice to the opponent insurance company. The opponent insurance company by its reply dated 05.05.2013 informed the complainant that the claim papers have already filed and accordingly it was informed by letter dated 06.06.2011. Therefore now claim cannot be considered etc. Thereafter on 23.12.2013 the complainant filed consumer complaint before District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad.

3. On hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and considering the documents on record the District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint vide order dated 27.03.2014 on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation.

4. Feeling aggrieved by that order the complainant came to this Commission in appeal.

5. We heard Shri. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the copy of impugned order as well as copies of complaint, copies of letters dated 06.06.2011 and 02.05.2013 of the opponent insurance company informing the complainant that claim papers are already filed etc.

6. Undisputed facts are that, by letter dated 06.06.2011 the complainant was informed by the opponent insurance company about closing the claim papers as œNo Claim?. Thereafter by letter dated 02.05.2013 the opponent insurance company replied the complainants notice informing that the claim papers are already closed and accordingly it was informed by letter dated 06.06.2011 and therefore the claim papers cannot be opened etc. In view of these undisputed facts only question arise as to whether the complaint was barred by limitation or not.

7. Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that though the complainant was informed by the opponent insurance company vide letter dated 06.06.2011 that the claim papers are closed as œNo claim?, the complainant made correspondence with the opponent insurance company requesting to consider the claim and he is ready to submit the documents which are required. Lastly, the complainant also issued legal notice dated 23.04.2013. But the opponent insurance company has not considered the claim and therefore lastly the complainant filed the complaint on 23.12.2013. Thus according to Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the complainant the cause of action for complaint arose on 02.05.2013 and not on 06.06.2011. But we find no merit in the submission of Mr. Gaikwad. Because when undisputedly the complainant was informed by the opponent insurance company vide its letter dated 06.06.2011 that the claim file is already closed etc. There could be no reason for the complainant to make further correspondence with the opponent insurance company. Therefore the opponent insurance company has rightly replied the complainants notice informing that the claim cannot be reopened.

8. When the complainant was informed by the opponent insurance company vide its letter dated 06.06.2011 closing the case papers, the complainant should have been filed the complaint within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of receipt of letter dated 06.06.2011. But he has not filed the complaint within the period of limitation. Hence the District Consumer Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint holding that it is hopelessly barred by limitation. We find no infirmity or any illegality in the impugned order. Hence no interference is warranted.

9. In the result, the appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed summarily. Hence the following order.

ORDER

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. No order as to cost.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //