Back
D.K.JAIN, R.M.LODHA
Kandimalla Raghavaiah – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. – Respondent
The key points from the provided legal document are as follows:
The provision under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, mandates that complaints must be filed within two years from the date the cause of action arises, unless sufficient cause is shown for delay, which can be condoned by the consumer forum (!) (!) .
The cause of action in this case originated on the date of the fire incident, which was between 22nd and 23rd March 1988, when the tobacco stocks in the insured premises were damaged (!) (!) .
The complainant (appellant) first requested the insurance company for claim forms in November 1992, which was more than four years after the incident, and this delay was not justified or condoned (!) (!) .
The insurance company’s response denying the claim and stating that the claim was time-barred was issued in March 1996, after a significant delay (!) (!) .
The complaint was filed in October 1997, which was beyond the two-year limitation period from the date of the cause of action, and no application for condonation of delay was made (!) (!) (!) .
The courts held that the complaint was barred by limitation because the cause of action accrued on the date of the fire, and the delay in filing was not sufficiently explained or condoned (!) (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that the limitation period begins from the date the cause of action arises and that the filing of the complaint after this period, without condonation, is invalid (!) (!) .
The courts also clarified that mere requests for claim forms or correspondence does not extend the limitation period or constitute a fresh cause of action (!) (!) .
The appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the complaint was time-barred and that the consumer forum was justified in rejecting it on this ground (!) .
Overall, the decision underscores the importance of timely filing of complaints in consumer disputes related to insurance claims and clarifies that delays beyond the statutory period cannot be excused unless explicitly condoned by the forum (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
JUDGMENT
D.K. Jain, J.—
1. Challenge in this Appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”, for short) is to a common judgment and order dated 17th April, 2002, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (“the Commission”, for short) in Original Petitions No. 97 of 1996 and 248 of 1997, whereby the Commission has dismissed appellant’s two complaints alleging deficiency in service against two different insurance companies on account of non-settlement of insurance claims made by the appellant, on the ground that both the complaints were barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Act.
2. The salient facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:
The appellant firm was engaged in the business of tobacco at Chelakaluripet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. They constructed godowns in the premises of M/s Kandimalla Venkateswarlu at Padripuram, in the same district for storage of tobacco. On 4th December, 1987 the appellant took out a Fire Policy ‘C’ with the National Insurance Company — Respondent No.1 in this appeal (subject matter of O.P. No. 248 of 1997), in the account of the Indian Bank - Respondent No.2 herein, against loss or damage
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
