• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM : : TINSUKIA : : ASSAM District: Tinsukia Present: Smti M. Nandi, President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tinsukia Smti J. Gogoi, Member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tinsukia Sri K.K. Das, Member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tinsukia Consumer Case No. 11 of 2014 Smti Parimeeta Bezbaruah, W/o Sri D.K. Pujari, R/o Bordoloi Nagar, Sector 3, Plot No.5, Golap Borbora Path, Near I.T. Office, P.O., P.S. & Dist: Tinsukia (Assam)…………..……...…..….………...Complainant - Versus – 1. The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Guwahati Divisional Office No.III, Gunahari Market 2nd floor, S.S. Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati – 781 001 (Assam) 2. The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Tinsukia Divisional Office, Plaza Complex, Rongagora Road, Tinsukia Dist:- Tinsukia (Assam)………………………….……………..Opposite Parties Appearance: Sri R.C. Das, Advocate……………………………….For the Complainant Sri G. Chakraborty, Advocate……………………………….For the O.Ps. 1 Date of Argument : 19.05.2016 & 16.06.2016 Date of Judgment : 23.06.2016 J U D G M E N T 1. The complainant Smti Parimeeta Bezbaruah filed a complaint u/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant was the absolute owner of a private motor boat named „Nahoroni‟, the hull of which was of length 6.45 meters and 1.40 meters in breadth and 0.50 meters in depth. The same was propelled by OBM engine bearing No.04742165 and 04781046. The said Nahoroni has been duly registered at the port of Guwahati and allotted govt. registration No.ASSAM – 489 of 2000/Guwahati by the registering authority. The motor boat was privately used in movement of her men for supervision of works involving products such as bamboo, cane, thatch etc. in and around the Brahmaputra and its tributaries within Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. As required by law, the said motor vessel Nahoroni with its hull and machinery was duly insured and the insurance policy of the boat was renewed with the insurer/O.P. No.1 i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for a sum insured of Rs.4,00,000/-. After acceptance of insurance proposal form and on receipt of premium of Rs.4759/- against receipt No.530900/81/08/0000002243 dated 30.7.08 under Boatman Comprehensive Package Policy Schedule being No.530900/48/08/58/00000231 given without insurance policy clauses or insurance terms and conditions. The policy was valid for the period from 31.7.08 to midnight of 30.7.09. 3. It is further stated in the complaint petition that on 9.7.09 at about 11 A.M., while being driven and coming from Kobo Chapori in Tinsukia District towards Nematighat in Jorhat by river Brahmaputra, the said motor vessel accidentally knocked against some hard object and met with an accident and sank in the water between Mohmora and Bogoritolia under Rohmoria Police Station, District – Dibrugarh. There was no any loss of life, as the occupants 2 of the boat managed to swim to bank. On the next day i.e. 10.7.09, the complainant made all out effort to find out the boat and also lodged FIR at the nearest police station i.e. Rohmoria Police Station, which was duly received and registered as Rohmoria P.S. G.D.E. No.130 dated 10.7.09. The site of the occurrence of the mishap was within the geographical limits of insurance coverage of the policy. Also the accident occurred due to striking with some object while sailing at river Brahmaputra which was a declared National Waterway No.2 and it is a peril of the navigable water and the same is covered under the policy as the policy covers perils of the seas/rivers, lakes or other navigable water etc. The complainant informed about the accident immediately to the O.P. No.1 vide letter dated 11.7.09 as the boat was under insurance cover with O.P. and the accident and loss being occurred during the period covered by insurance policy and thereby lodged claim. The insurer O.P. as per IRDA regulations belatedly appointed an IRDA categorized and licensed surveyor Sri Nitul Kotoky. The surveyor asked the complainant to submit some documents which included claim form needed to be collected from the insurance company. Under the instruction of the surveyor, the complainant immediately approached the insurer for the claim form and simultaneously submitted all the relevant and necessary documents as available with her on 7.8.09 to the surveyor, but the insurer failed to make available and provide the requisite claim form. Hence, the complainant on her own effort arranged to obtain a copy after much difficulty by searching and downloading from the Internet and submitted it to the concerned surveyor by speed post on 22.10.09. The complainant also informed the insurer O.P. No.1, Guwahati Divisional office regarding submission of documents to the surveyor, but for over four years, the O.P. slept over the matter of settlement of the claim and preferred to remain mum in spite of cooperation and prompt compliance of all requirements, repeated reminders and visits to their office and neglected the matter. 4. The complainant also stated that the business of the complainant came to a standstill immediately after the accident. The complainant has lodged a genuine claim on a valid policy and proved the genuineness of the loss for compensation by submitting whatever documents asked. The 3 insurer/O.P. intentionally and deliberately dragged the claim for all these years in an attempt to escape from their contractual liability. Due to non- settlement of the claim, even after elapsing of over four years accompanied by other wrongful acts of the O.P. No.1, the complainant has suffered heavy financial loss as well as business earning besides mental agony, harassment and financial hardship, for which the O.P. is liable to compensate, as the same falls under deficiency of service. Hence, this case claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- being the agreed sum insured, payment of interest @ 24% over the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the inconvenience faced by the complainant and another sum of Rs.30,000/- as cost of the proceeding. 5. Against the petition, O.P./insurance company has submitted their written statement, wherein it is stated that the complainant has no right to sue. This Forum has no jurisdiction and the present petition is barred by limitation. The present petition is frivolous, vexatious and is filed with malafide intention for the purpose of making wrongful gain by the complainant and to cause wrongful loss to the O.P. It is denied in the written statement that the complainant vide letter dated 11.7.09 informed the accident of the boat and thereby lodged her claim with the O.Ps. It is also submitted that the letter dated 11.7.09 appended with the present complaint petition is a manufactured document made for the purpose of this case. The said letter never received by the O.Ps. It is also submitted that no claim being made with the O.Ps and therefore, question of O.Ps‟ sleeping over the matter of settlement of the claim for over four years does not arise at all. It is also submitted that the complainant unfairly and dishonestly approached this Forum despite of the fact that her complaint is false, vexatious and frivolous and she is not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for. Moreover, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint petition. 6. In the case in hand, no formal issues were framed. Both the parties submitted their evidence on affidavit. At the time of argument, ld. Counsel 4 for the O.Ps submitted that the case is barred by limitation as per Section 24- A of Consumer Protection Act. 7. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the O.Ps that cause of action in the instant case started from the date 9.7.09, being the date of alleged sank of the boat in the Brahmaputra river. The complainant however, has filed this instant complaint after a period of over four years. Thus, the present petition is barred by limitation as provided u/s.24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. It is also added by the ld. Counsel for the O.Ps that the complainant did not file any condonation petition for condoning the delay. As such, there is no scope for condoning the delay by the Forum. 8. On the other hand, complainant‟s side did not utter a single word regarding period of limitation in her written argument. 9. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act says – (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period : Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

Load more

  7

Copy Link