BHAGIRATHI PLASTIC INDUSTRIES vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

THIS is an appeal against order and judgment dated 11.6.1992 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi in Complaint Case No. 1/1991. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant filed a complaint for recovery of Rs. 70,000/- alongwith interest.

IT has been alleged that from M/s. Kailash Engineering Works, New Delhi, the complainant purchased one horizontal Injunction moulding machine for a sum of Rs. 3,23,000/-. The said machine was sent by road from Delhi to Uttarkashi and a transit insurance was obtained from respondent No. 1. The insurance was for a sum of Rs. 3,23,000/- and the machine was booked through M/s. Northern Carrier (P) Ltd. on 17.2.1986. When the machine was being transported the truck met with an accident at Baraut, Distt. Meerut. A survey was made in which it was stated that there is a total loss of the machine and the loss was to the tune of Rs. 3,23,000/-. IT is alleged that respondent No. 1, the Insurance Company is liable to pay for the loss. Salvage of the machine was handed over by the respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 2,53,000/- to the petitioner in December, 1987. A sum of Rs. 70,000/- were not paid as cost of the salvage and that was to be realised from respondent No. 2 on the instructions of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 has not handed over the salvage to respondent No. 1. This agreement was between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the petitioner was not a party to this agreement. Opposite party No. 1 was liable to pay this amount of Rs. 70,000/- also. The complainant was informed by U.P. Financial Corporation that Insurance Company has paid Rs. 2,53,000/- only. Opposite party No. 1, who is the appellant, has filed his written statement alleging therein that the complainant is not a consumer and the claim is barred by limitation. It is alleged that the claimant is entitled for payment of Rs. 3,23,000/- and after taking the value of the salvage of Rs. 70,000/- a payment of Rs. 2,53,000/- was made. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay any other amount. It is not possible now to re-open a claim barred by time.

In the replication it was alleged that the complainant is a consumer and is entitled to recovery of Rs. 70,000/-.

AFTER perusal of evidence on record and hearing the learned Counsels for the parties, it was held that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Uttarkashi. Hence it dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved against this order, the appellant has come up in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Forum. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the machine was purchased in Delhi and it was only to be delivered at the request of the complainant at Uttarkashi. According to the learned Counsel the machine was not purchased in Uttarkashi nor there is any office of the appellant at Uttarkashi. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 does not reside at Uttarkashi. The learned District Forum has considered the arguments and came to the conclusion that no cause of action arose either wholly or in part within the local limits of the jurisdiction of District Forum of Uttarkashi. It has also held that there is nothing in the petition to indicate that the Company was bound to deliver the machine at Uttarkashi. The machine was sent to Uttarkashi at the request of the complainant. We are also in agreement with the findings of the learned District Forum because there is no documents on record to show that any part of cause of action arose within the limits of Uttarkashi District Forum.

THE next point which has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the case is barred by limitation. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, payment of Rs. 2,53,000/- was made on 21.9.1987 and the claim of Rs. 70,000/- was refused. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the claim petition was filed on 19th April, 1991 after four years of the payment of Rs. 2,53,000/- Repudiation of the claim of the rest amount of Rs. 70,000/- after the last payment was made in September, 1987. THE complaint should have been filed within a period of three years from the date of repudiation of non-payment of Rs. 70,000/-. THE claim petition has not been filed within the period of three years from date of accrual of cause of action. THErefore, the claim petition is barred by limitation. THE findings of the District Forum, therefore, is perfectly correct on the question of limitation. Thus we find that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned District Forum. Order THE appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree of learned District Forum are confirmed. Let copy be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.