AKHIL BHARTIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT vs Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.

AKHIL Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat, Jehanabad on behalf of one Mrs. Lila Devi appeals against the impugned said order dated 20.3.1997 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 252/1995 whereby the complaint filed by Mrs. Lila Devi was dismissed.

THE facts of the case, according to the complainant, are that Mrs. Lila Devi, being a, owner, operated a ''Bus Service'' in between Hazaribagh and Gaya bearing registration No. BHM-8553 comprehensively insured under Insurance Policy No. 351400/6302488 for Rupees one lakh eighty thousand only, which was operative with effect from 14.11.1986 to 13.11.1987. During the validity of aforesaid policy issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the said vehicle was stolen on 12.6.1987 from Gaya, for which, a Complaint Case No. 145/1987 was filed in the Court of CJM, Gaya and, subsequently thereafter, Gaya Kotwali PS Case No. 222/1987 dated 30.6.1987 was registered. On completion of investigation, FF was submitted ''PRT'' no clue, whereupon, the complainant put forward her claim of total loss to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. THE reminders were sent times without number but without any positive result. Even on service of legal notice, no positive step has been taken by the respondents, resulting in filing of the complaint before this Consumer Forum. On being noticed, respondent No. 2 sent a Fax Message to the District Forum stating therein that respondent No. 1 had already settled the claim by sending a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- (Rupees one lakh and sixty two thousand only) by means of a Cheque No. 996846 dated 10th of August, 1998 to the Financier, M/s. Motor & General Finance Ltd., i.e. respondent No. 3 and, as such the complainant should have no grievance. According to the complainant, hypothecation agreement with the Financier had already been terminated prior to the issuance of the policy in question.

Feeling aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the appellant preferred the present appeal on behalf of Mrs. Lila Devi challenging the legality of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and considered the materials placed on record including the impugned order. Admittedly, the vehicle in question, was purchased by the complainant after being financed by respondent No. 3. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant alleged that hypothecation agreement with the Financier had already been terminated before taking out the aforesaid policy and, as such, she did not have any liability to pay any sum to the Financier. Not an iota of evidence has been brought on record in support of his contention. That apart, the complainant neither filed "no dues certificate" nor original owner-book of the vehicle to show as to whether the vehicle, in question, was in the name of the Financier or it was transferred in the name of the complainant.

IN the rejoinder filed on 24.2.1997, the complainant admitted in clear term that she had no grievance against the Financier. On the facts as stated above, there is no positive evidence on record to show that the vehicle, in question, was ever transferred in the name of the complainant and, as such, the claim was rightly settled with the Financier in term and condition of the policy. It was pointed out that the complaint itself was hopelessly barred by limitation. The period of limitation as prescribed under Section 24-A of the C.P. Act is two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. In this particular case, the cause of action either arose on 12.6.1987 when the vehicle, in question, was stolen or when claim was finally repudiated by the Insurance Company. The complainant has not mentioned the date as to when she preferred the claim before the Insurance Company. This case is, thus, seems hopelessly barred by limitation. Learned Counsel for the complainant, however, submits that the complainant since continued writing to the Insurance Company to settle her claim and, as such, she had continuing cause of action and in that view of the matter, the case is not at all barred by limitation.

SO far limitation is concerned, not a chit of paper has been brought on record to show when the claim was repudiated. The vehicle was admittedly stolen on 12.6.1987 when the complaint was filed some time in 1994. Mere writing a letter is not enough to condone the long delay. Moreover, when the claim is settled with the Financier, there was no occasion to write a letter to Insurance Company. Section 15 of the C.P. Act envisages that any person aggrieved by an order of the District Forum may prefer an appeal. The person must be aggrieved one against the judgment and decree of the subordinate Court. In this particular case, Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat, Jehanabad has preferred an appeal against the order dated 20.3.1997 passed in the aforesaid complaint but nowhere it has been mentioned that it was aggrieved against the aforesaid order. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the interest of Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat was ever adversely affected by the order impugned. Over and above it has not been shown that the Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat was ever authorised to file the instant appeal. In our view, Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat, Jehanabad is not an aggrieved person or persons to file appeal before this Commission. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the judgment and order passed by the Forum below is based on correct appraisal and appreciation of the facts and evidence. This appeal is accordingly dismissed but without cost. Let a copy of the order be sent to the parties and/or handed over to the respective Counsels forthwith. Appeal dismissed.