Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Rapati Ramayamma (Died) Per L.Rs. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 26 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(4)ALT526
Author: R.M. Bapat
Bench: R.M. Bapat
JUDGMENT R.M. Bapat, J.
1. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 14 of 1976 filed by her in the Court of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam claiming compensation of Rs. 18,760/- from the defendants being the principal amount of Rs. 10,500/- plus interest of Rs. 8,260/- at the rate of one per cent per mensem from 5-2-1969 to 25-8-1975.
2. It was the case of the original plaintiff i.e., the appellant herein, that her vehicle bearing RT.A.No. A.P.V. 3871 T.M. Benz was insured with the first defendant Insurance Company under Policy No. 1201936. The said vehicle met with an accident on 17-9-1968. There was no loss of life and only the vehicle was damaged and therefore the plaintiff claimed compensation on the strength of the comprehensive Insurance Policy.
3. It appears that on presentation of the Original Suit, summons were issued to the defendants. They filed their written statements and contested the suit of the plaintiff mainly on the ground of limitation. It was alleged by the respondents herein that the accident took place on 17-9-1968 whereas the claim petition was filed in the year 1976 which is barred by limitation.
4. The learned Judge on the strength of the pleadings framed the issues. Parties to the proceedings were allowed to lead evidence. On hearing both sides, the claim of the plaintiff was rejected mainly on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the lower Court, the appellant herein has approached this Court in appeal on the grounds stated in the appeal memorandum.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant herein and the learned Counsel for the respondents herein.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant read out the judgment of the trial Court and submitted that practically all the issues were held in favour of the appellant except the point of limitation. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that a huge correspondence was going on between the plaintiff and the defendants Insurance Company, and therefore there was delay in filing the claim petition. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that, as a matter of fact, the brother of the claimant was driving the vehicle who had a valid licence but whereas the defendants took a stand that a third party was driving the vehicle who had no valid driving licence. On that ground only the claim made by the plaintiff was rejected by the defendants. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Police made a false report regarding the person as to who was driving the vehicle. As a matter of fact, the brother of the plaintiff was driving the vehicle and this fact was proved by the report of the transport authorities. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that a charge-sheet was filed in the Criminal Court in C.C. No. 658 of 1968 against the third party who had nothing to do with the vehicle owned by the plaintiff which met with an accident. But the third party pleaded guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to pay some fine. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the plea of guilty done by the third party is not binding on the claimant.
7. This Court is not called upon to decide the issue as to whether the Police filed the charge-sheet against the right person or the wrong person but the fact remains that when the first claim was made by the plaintiff, that claim was rejected by the Insurance Company by writing a letter Ex.A-3 for the first time on 26-11-1968. Even for the sake of arguments that the rejection of the claim done by the Insurance Company under Ex.A-3 is held to be not correct, in that event it was the duty of the plaintiff to file a suit claiming damages from the Insurance Company within a period of three years commencing from 26-11-1968. The time of limitation starts running from the moment Ex.A-3 was issued by the defendant-Insurance Company to the plaintiff. Admittedly the suit was filed in the year 1976 which is barred by limitation.
8. The trial Court has considered the above issues and held that the claim of the plaintiff cannot be maintained.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant herein invited my attention to Exs.A-20 and A-22 and submitted that these letters will amount to an acknowledgment of the liability of the Insurance Company.
10. I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. As a matter of fact, Exs.A-20 and A-22 are not the letters of acknowledgments acknowledging the dues of the plaintiff. Even if Ex.A-20 and Ex.A-22 are taken to be the acknowledgments of the claim of the plaintiff by the Insurance Company, still the claimant-plaintiff will not get any remedy at the hands of this Court as the Law is very clear on the point. The acknowledgment must be made by the debtor in the present case i.e., the defendants within a period of three years from the date of cause of action. That does not appear to be so in the present case.
11. Considering the above point, this Court holds that there is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.