State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co.Ltd., vs Canara Bank, Branch Subhash Road, on 11 March, 2014
1 F.A.No.:504/2008
Date of filing :06.05.2008
Date of order :11.03.2014
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :504 OF 2008
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 261 OF 2007
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :OSMANABAD.
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Through its Divisional office,
Osmanpura, Aurangabad through its
Divisional Manager. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The Manager,
Canara bank, Branch Subhash Road,
Beed Taluka and Dist.Beed.
2. Bibhishan Digambarrao Mote,
R/o Anandnagar, Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist.Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.S.V.Kulkarni for appellant, Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale for respondent No.2.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 11th March 2014) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.3.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Osmanabad allowing consumer complaint No.261/2007 directing appellant/opponent No.2 2 F.A.No.:504/2008 insurance company to pay to the complainant/respondent No.2 insurance amount of Rs.1 lakh with 9% interest and further Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
(For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as opponent insurance company, respondent No.2 as complainant, respondent No.1 as opponent bank)
2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Late Yogesh who was the son of complainant Vibhishan died in motor accident on 30.12.2003. He was having motor-cycle bearing registration No.MH-25/E-1255. His motor-cycle was insured with opponent insurance company obtaining motor-cycle/scooter package policy covering risk of own as well as vehicle to the extent of Rs.1 lakh. The policy was in force for the period from 2.12.2003 to 01.12.2004.
3. On 30.12.2003 while insured late Yogesh was riding motor- cycle, S.T.bus dashed to his motor-cycle and therefore insured Yogesh sustained severe injury and succumbed to the injury. His motor-cycle was also damaged. On receiving information the police visited scene of offence prepared panchanama. Thereafter complainant had filed insurance claim pertaining to the motor vehicle. On receiving claim, opponent insurance company settled the claim on 1.7.2004 reimbursing motor-cycle repair bill of Rs.16,450/-. Complainant received the same amount of claim and thereafter by notice dated 22.10.2007 claimed the amount of insurance pertaining to the personal accident cover. However, as his claim is not settled by opponent insurance company, complainant filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent insurance company and claimed insurance amount of Rs.1 lakh and 3 F.A.No.:504/2008 compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental agony and he has also claimed Rs.2000/- more towards cost of proceeding.
4. Opponent No.2 insurance company by its written version resisted the complaint contending inter alia that the claim is being barred by limitation, complaint is not maintainable. Further it is contended that personal accident benefit claim was not covered under the said policy . It is submitted to dismiss the complaint .
5. On hearing both sides and considering documents on record District Consumer Forum held that complainant is entitled to get insurance claim as opponent insurance company committed deficiency in service denying the claim etc. In keeping with this finding District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint against opponent No.2 insurance company directing it to pay to the complainant insurance amount of Rs.1 lakh with interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs.1000/- more towards cost of the proceeding. however, no order is passed against opponent No.1 bank.
6. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order opponent No.2 insurance company came to this Commission in appeal.
7. We heard learned counsel appearing for appellant/opponent insurance company and also learned counsel for the complainant. However, we have had no opportunity to hear opponent bank as nobody turned up despite service of notice and therefore appeal proceeded exparte against it. We also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint , written version, insurance policy and other documents.
8. It is submitted by Shri.S.V.Kulkarni learned counsel for opponent No.2 insurance company that though the consumer 4 F.A.No.:504/2008 complaint was barred by limitation and it was specifically averred in written version which was submitted by opponent insurance company before District Consumer Forum, Forum without considering the point of limitation wrongly allowed the complaint. It is further submitted that insurance policy is not covered personal accident risk of vehicle owner, but District Consumer Forum wrongly allowed the complaint etc. To which, it is denied by Shri.Tandale learned counsel for the complainant and pointing out the terms and conditions of the insurance policy submitted that policy covers personal accident risk. Insurance company also obtained extra premium of Rs.50/- towards personal accident benefit which is shown as "WC to employee". It is also submitted that though the insured died in the year 2003, complaint filed on 16.11.2007 is not barred by limitation. According to Mr.Tandale learned counsel for complainant before filing complaint, notice dated 22.10.2007 was issued to the opponent insurance company but opponent insurance company neither replied nor complied notice. Therefore District Consumer Forum has rightly allowed the complaint without considering preliminary objection of limitation raised by opponent insurance company. But we find little force in the submission of Mr.Tandale learned counsel for the complainant because though notice dated 22.10.2007 was issued to opponent insurance company, it is not disclosed by the complainant as to how cause of action was continued since 30.12.2003 to 22.10.2007.
9. Even it is not the contention of complainant that he insisted or asked opponent insurance company for such claim. There is also no record to show that there was any correspondence between complainant and insurance company during the period from 30.12.2003 to 22.10.2007. Adv.Tandale for complainant also fairly conceded that there is no such record. He could not explain as to how cause of action continued till the date of filing of complaint. Therefore it cannot be accepted that cause of action was continued after two 5 F.A.No.:504/2008 years from the date of accident. Thus it is obvious from undisputed fact that complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.
10. However, on perusal of copy of impugned judgment and order it reflects that District Consumer Forum without considering preliminary objection of the opponent insurance company on the point of limitation committed serious error in allowing complaint. Such erroneous judgment and order cannot be sustained. Therefore without considering the other points appeal deserves to be allowed.
11. In the result appellant succeeds. Hence the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order is set aside.
3. Consumer complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- K.B.Gawali, S.M.Shembole, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane