Back
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Subash Mahtab, President In-charge and Basanti Devi, Member
BABULAL AGRAWAL - Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Respondent
Consumer Dispute Appeal No. 607 of 2001
Decided on : 29-04-2008
M/s. P.K. Sharma and Assoc., Advocates, for the Appellant; M/s. A.K. Mohanty and Assoc., Advocates, for the Respondent
The validity of the driver's license and the limitation period for filing an insurance claim are crucial factors in determining the admissibility of the claim.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Limitation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149 - Insurance Act, 1938, Section 45 - The court discussed the limitation period for filing an insurance claim, the requirement of a valid driving license for the driver, and the repudiation of the insurance claim based on the driver's invalid license. The court found that the complainant's case was filed beyond the limitation period and the insurance claim was rightly repudiated due to the driver's invalid license.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a case seeking an insurance claim for a vehicle accident, alleging deficiency of service by the insurance company. The District Forum dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period and the insurance claim was rightly repudiated due to the driver's invalid license.
Issues: Limitation period for filing insurance claim, validity of driver's license, repudiation of insurance claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant's case was filed beyond the limitation period and the insurance claim was rightly repudiated due to the driver's invalid license.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the District Forum were confirmed.
ORDER
1. The unsuccessful complainant in CD Case No. 23 of 2000 of the District Forum, Bargarh has filed this appeal challenging the orders dated 6.9.2001 in the said CD case, as per which the District Forum has dismissed the complaint petition being devoid of merit, there being no cause of action and the complaint case has been filed beyond the period of limitation without necessary explanation to that effect.
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant/appellant filed the aforesaid CD case to direct the sole opposite party/respondent to pay insurance claim of Rs. 1,96,000 with interest @ 18% per annum from 15.2.1997 till realization of the said amount, Rs. 25,000 towards loss of business, harassment and mental agony and Rs. 3,000 towards cost of litigation, in total a sum of Rs. 2,24,000. His case is that he has purchased and used Tata-709 bearing registration No. OR-17-8465 for earning his livelihood by self-employment. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party from 10.9.1996 to 9.9.1997. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 15.11.1997. He intimated about the same to the opposite party and lodged claim before him supplying all the required documents. But the opposite party neither settled the claim nor repudiated the claim. Therefore, complainant filed the CD case claiming aforesaid amount alleging deficiency of service by the opposite party.
3. After entering into appearance, the opposite party vide his written version stated that the complaint is barred by limitation and the complainant is not entitled to any claim, the vehicle being driven by a driver holding fake licence contrary to the condition of the policy in question. It is stated by the opposite party that soon after receipt of information about the accident, he had deputed a Surveyor. On the aforesaid ground viz. as the driver-Anand Kumar Pradhan was driving the vehicle possessing a fake driving licence, opposite party had repudiating the claim of the complainant sent a letter dated 18.5.1998 by registered post with A/D. Thus, the opposite party had claimed for dismissal of the CD case, he having not caused any negligence or deficiency in service in repudiating the claim.
4. Taking into consideration the documents viz. Exts. 1 to 15 filed on behalf of the complainant and Exts. A to 1 filed by the opposite party with reference to the pleadings of both the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.
5. The complaint has challenged the said orders as illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing from both sides and perused the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed by both parties.
7. The CD case solely having been dismissed on the ground of barred by limitation by the District Forum, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that no letter of repudiation dated 18.5.1998 has been received by him. The opposite party has not proved receipt of said letter by him. He was absent from the town from 17.5.1998 to 26.5.1998 and was bed ridden from 2.4.2000 to 13.6.2000. Therefore, had he received said letter, he would have easily filed the complaint petition in time. In this respect, though he has filed the affidavit (Ext. 15), the District Forum did not take the same into consideration. It has also been submitted by him that as soon as he recovered from sickness, he sent notice dated 13.6.2000 to the opposite party through his lawyer and thereafter filed the complaint case on 24.6.2000 when the opposite party did not respond to the pleader's notice.
8. Undisputedly said Tata-709 met with an accident on 15.11.1997 and complainant had lodged claim before the opposite party. When complainant claims that the opposite party remains silent on the claim, for which he sent pleader's notice on 13.6.2000 and getting no reply, he filed the CD case yet opposite party insists that he has intimated repudiation of claim vide a letter despatched on 19.5.19
