NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. BUDH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Insurance - appellant purchased buffalos with financial help from Bank and insured for a sum of Rs.17, 000/ - buffalo died on 20.5.2003 - Insurance policy was in force on the said date - Insurer paid only a sum of Rs. 13,000/ - to the Bank -Claim for remaining amount of Rs. 4000/ - - Neither any averment made in the complaint to the effect that appellant was compelled to accept the lesser amount nor any evidence produced - appeal dismissed. Cases referred: (1) Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bijoy Kumar Roy and others (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases

(2.) Insured Buffalo died on 18.3.2001 claim was repudiated by the appellant vide Annexure RW/1 on 28.5 2001, Photostat copy of the repudiation letter, and addressed to the financier i.e. Respondent No.2 Bank and its copy was endorsed to respondent No. 1. This complaint out of which this appeal has arisen is dated 11.3.2004. Where as complaint had to be filed within 2 years form the date on which the cause of action has arisen to a litigant like respondent No.1 Cause of action, it is well known constitutes of bundle of facts. Initially it arose in favour of respondent No.1 on 18.3.2001 when the insured animal died and lastly for filing the complaint it finally arose on 28.5.2001, when the financier RW/1 was informed of repudiation, with copy of this letter endorsed to the respondent No.1. This being the date of repudiation of the claim of the respondent No.1 is not in dispute. Therefore, as per section 24 -A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complaint should have been filed by or before 27.5.2003. In case it was field beyond that date, then under Sub section 2 of Section 24 -A (supra), respondent No.1 as complainant should have satisfied the District Forum below, that he had sufficient cause for filing the same within the prescribed time, and on being satisfied by a reasoned order delay in filing the appeal could be condoned.

(3.) A perusal of the file of the District Forum below shows that these facts are there on record and the appellant in paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections in reply to the compliant had specifically pleaded that complaint was time barred. Unfortunately, this aspect of the case has not been gone into its right perspective for the District Forum below. It was submitted by Mr. Thakur on behalf of the appellant that on the basis of the facts as set out in the complaint and therefore, on the basis of record complaint should have been dismissed by the District Forum below.