AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 11th day of February, 1997 in O.P. No. 46/1995 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Trichy.
THE appellant is the opposite party while the respondent is the complainant. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.
The complainant by name one G. Arunagiri Pillai took a policy of insurance in respect of his lorry bearing No. TNT 6687 covering third party risk for a period of one year commencing from 17.3.1989 to 16.3.1990. Subsequently, on 3.7.1989, the complainant remitted a further sum of Rs. 1,781/- for the conversion of the policy so taken into one of comprehensive policy.
THE complainant would say that his lorry met with an accident on 9.7.1989 and suffered extensive damages in the accident. He made a claim in respect of the damages sustained by his lorry with the opposite party. THE opposite party Insurance Company repudiated the claim. THEreafter, he issued a lawyer''s notice to the opposite party on 16.3.1992, which was, of course, replied by the opposite party. THE claim was, however, not settled. Alleging the factors as above, he knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.
THE opposite party Insurance Company in pith and substance would say that there was no deficiency in service on their part. What they would say is that the accident took place prior to 30.6.1989 and, therefore, it is that they are not liable to compensate the complainant for the damages said to have been sustained by the lorry. This apart, what they would further contend is that the claim as made by the complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation. THE complaint as such is liable to be dismissed. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, however, recorded a finding that the claim as made by the complainant is very well within the period of limitation. The other finding that was recorded by the Forum below was that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Insurance Company in the sense of not settling the claim within a reasonable time. The Forum below further accepted the claim as made by the complainant and consequently directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards damages caused to the vehicle with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 23.3.1992 till date of payment with cost of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved by the order as above, the appellant/opposite party Insurance Company resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice namely, learned Counsel Mr. R. Vedantham.
ON service of process, the respondent/complainant also entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice namely, learned Counsel Mr. R. Devaprasad.
WE heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. S. Natarajan representing learned Counsel Mr. R. Vedantham appearing for the appellant/opposite party and learned Counsel Ms. R. Uma Maheswari representing learned Counsel Mr. R. Devaprasad appearing for the respondent/complainant. Even at the outset we may point out that there absolutely no merits in the appeal. The vociferous plea as taken in the Forum below regarding limitation may now fall in the arena of discussion.
There is no pale of controversy that the claim as made by the complainant had been repudiated by the opposite party Insurance Company by the issuance of reply dated 23.3.1992 to the legal notice dated 16.3.1992 issued by the complainant to the opposite party Insurance Company. We are to point out here that the opposite party Insurance Company was callously negligent in not even sending a repudiation letter to the complainant despite the claim having been made to them. Seen from the docket sheet of the complaint, it is crystal clear that the complaint had been reached the portals of the Forum below on 29.12.1994.
SECTION 24A providing the period of limitation of two years for initiation of complaint had been inserted in the Act by Act No. 50 of 1993 with effect from 18.6.1993. Prior to this, insertion of SECTION 24A, the general law of limitation is to be made applicable and according to the general law of period of limitation for initiation of the complaint had been consistently held to be three years by the National Commission and also the Apex Judiciary of this country. Taking the period of limitation for initiation of the complaint as three years, the complaint filed in this case on 29.12.1994 must have to be construed as one filed within the period of limitation, that is to say by way of reiteration that the repudiation having been made by the opposite party Insurance Company on 23.3.1992, calculation of period of limitation from that day till filing the complaint would be less than three years. Therefore, the complaint as filed is within the period of limitation. The other vociferous contention making lot of sound as taken by the opposite party Insurance Company is that the accident took place prior to 30.6.1989. This sort of a contention, it appears, had been made to get themselves relief of payment of compensation to the complainant. The plea remains as a plea alone without any supporting document. In other words, it has no legs to stand at all. It is the contention for contention sake, which deserves outright rejection and to be thrown lock, stock and barrel and we accordingly do so.
WITH regard to the actual expenses said to have been incurred by the complainant for the damages sustained by the lorry, he has produced the Bills Ex. A3 series, which the Forum below took into account and granted compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for effecting repairs in the vehicle. This award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in such circumstances cannot at all be stated to be one not covered by documents. The Forum below also awarded cost in a sum of Rs. 500/- which, in the circumstances, we feel, is reasonable not calling for interference. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. An undertaking like the opposite party Insurance Company should not indulge in unnecessary litigation, harassing the parties insured, making them running from pillar to post. It is high time that this sort of an attitude by the opposite party Insurance Company must have to be avoided. Normally, we are not mulcting liability by way of costs in appeal. In the case on hand, we are inclined to do so as a consequence of the opposite party Insurance Company unnecessarily taking pleas in their counter without any supporting documents, just for the sake of the contest the case. We, therefore, direct the appellant/opposite party Insurance Company to pay to the complainant a cost of Rs. 500/- in this appeal. The order of the Forum below as confirmed by us along with costs we have awarded must have to be complied with by the opposite party Insurance Company within a period of one month from the date of receipt of our order or otherwise the respondent/complainant would be at liberty to invoke the provisions under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act"). Appeal dismissed.