SUDAMA LAL MADHWANI vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party.

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant owned a Matador, which was insured with the respondent lnsurance Company for the relevant period. The insured vehicle met with an accident on 22. 4. 1994. The matter was reported to the respondent, who after considering the matter, repudiated the claim on 6. 10. 1994. This complaint came to be filed before the District Forum only in 1999. The District Forum, after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint being barred by limitation along with cost of Rs. 500 payable to the respondent. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission also got dismissed as barred by limitation, hence this revision petition before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The basic facts are not disputed that the vehicle met within accident on 22. 4. 1994 but it is the case of the petitioner that he was never communicated by any letter of repudiation the outcome of the claim, and no material was produced before any Fora in respect of the repudiation letter having been sent. It is in these circumstances that the complainant raised the issue of settlement only on 30. 6. 1999.

We are unable to appreciate as to how after filing the claim for compensating him for the cost of repairs in 1994, for the first time, the petitioner writes to the respondent only after 5 years in June, 1999? There is no material brought on record, as to what did he do for 5 years when the claim was not getting settled as also he was praying for recovery of the expenditure of Rs. 1. 5 lakh spent on repairs of the vehicle. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that if letter of repudiation was issued on 6. 10. 1994, then where was the justification for issuing another letter in November,1994? We are still unable to appreciate as to what was the petitioner/complainant doing for 5 years, if the claim was not settled? Even if we presume that the claim was not repudiated but then for five long years, the petitioner should have taken some action for settlement of claim! The law envisages the period of limitation to be counted from the date of cause of action. In this case, even if it is presumed that letter of repudiation was not issued, then the five years should start from the date of accident or at best from the date of filing the claim (both in 1994) which was not getting settled. Nothing has been brought on record that anything was done for 5 long years before filing this complaint.

LNNOCUOUS effort is made that in another case, the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Raipur, had settled the claim through a compromise between the parties, i. e. , the Insurance Company, it is from there that they became aware that the lnsurance Company has not settled their claim. If we see that order, we find that, that case was registered in 1994 and order was passed by that Court on 8. 8. 2001. It has got no bearing whatsoever with 1999, i. e. , the year in which the complaint was filed before the District Forum. In view of above, we find that no grounds have been shown to us to call for any interference in the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission in exercise of our revision jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is devoid of merit, hence dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.