State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. The Divisional Manager Lic Of India, vs 1. S. Shahzadi Begum, Wife Of Late ... on 18 February, 2015
Daily Order BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD First Appeal No. A/682/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/03/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/60/2013 of District Cuddapah) 1. 1. The Divisional Manager LIC of India, Yerramukkapalli, Kadapa 2. 2. The Branch Manager, LIC of India Nagarajupeta Branch Kadapa ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1. S. Shahzadi Begum, Wife of late Mohammed Ghouse Peer, Muslim, Aged 71 Years, Occ House wife, R.o. D.No.10 by 636 Bellam Mundi Street, Kadapa 2. 2. Mohammed Hafeezur Rehman Son of Late Mahammed Ghouse Peer, Muslim Aged 52 Years, R.o. D.No.10 by 636 Bellam Mundi Street, kadapa ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE Gopala Krishna Tamada PRESIDENT HON'ABLE MR. T.Ashok Kumar MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: ORDER Counsel for the Appellants: Mr.Gosala Srinivasa Rao. Counsel for the Respondents: M/s G.V.Naidu QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT. AND SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON'BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN Oral Order ( Per Hon'ble Sri Justice GopalakrishnaTamada, President.) *** This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the orders dated 28-3-2014 in CC No.60/2013 whereby the complaint filed by the complainants i.e. wife and son of late Mohammed Ghouse Peer was allowed by the District Forum and the opposite parties were directed to pay the policy amounts of Rs.50,000/- along with vested bonus upto the date of maturity of policy bond i.e. 15-9-2013 and Rs.40,000/- along with vested bonus upto the date of maturity of policy bond i.e. 28-3-2014 together with Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
The brief facts are that the husband of the first complainant, one Mohammed Ghouse Peer, during his life time got his life insured and obtained two policies bearing Nos.651969185 and 652263946 valid at Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- on 15-9-1998 and 28-3-1999 respectively. The said policies are to be matured after a period of 15 years i.e. on 15-9-2013 and 28-3-2014 respectively and the insured was paying the premiums of Rs.3,614/- and Rs.4,363/- per year respectively regularly. However, the insured died on 18-12-2000 due to heart attack and as the complainants are the nominees of the said life assured, they addressed a letter on 24-9-2009 stating that they are the nominees of the life assured and requested to pay the insurance amount under the policies. They also produced the required documents, however, as the death claim was not settled, they got issued a legal notice on 26-6-2013 but as there was no response, they approached the District Forum for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the policy amounts of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- plus vested bonus along with interest, Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
The same was opposed by the opposite parties by filing a detailed written version wherein they admitted the issuance of the policies and a categorical stand was taken that the complaint was barred by limitation.
However, the District Forum negated the said submission of the opposite parties and awarded the claim amount with vested bonus etc., The same was questioned by the appellants/opposite parties in this appeal.
Heard.
Admittedly the policies taken by Mohammed Ghouse Peer i.e. the life assured were of the years 1998 and 1999 and the death took place on 18-12-2000. Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows:
Limitation period. - (l) 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 (l), 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.
As per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a claim is maintainable, if made within a period of two years from the date of cause of action. In our considered view, the cause of action must have arisen in this case on 18-12-2000 i.e. the date on which the death took place and if we take the said date of death i.e. 18-12-2000 into consideration, the complaint should have been filed within a period of two years i.e. before 2002 whereas the present complaint itself was filed in the year 2009. Ofcourse, the complaint can be filed even after the expiry of statutory period provided it is supported by a petition to condone the delay. But in the instant case, no petition to condone the delay of 7 years was filed and the District Forum has not taken the particular aspect into consideration and awarded the policy amounts together with bonus and compensation when the stand of the appellants throughout is that the said complaint filed by the respondents/complainants is not maintainable and that the same is barred by limitation which we admit.
Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the said order passed by the District Forum is hereby set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
sd/- PRESIDENT.
sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.18-2-2015. [HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE Gopala Krishna Tamada] PRESIDENT [HON'ABLE MR. T.Ashok Kumar] MEMBER