State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sbi Life Insurace Co Ltd. & Anr. vs Sh. Rakesh Kumar. & Ors. on 28 November, 2019
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 29/2018
Date of Presentation: 07.02.2018
Order Reserved on : 14.06.2019
Date of Order : 28.11.2019
......
1. State Bank of India Life Insurance through Head Claims SBI
Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Central Processing Centre Kapas
Bhawan Plot No.3A Sector No.10 CBD Belapur Navi Mumbai-
400614 now shifted to new address Seawoods Grand Central F
Wing 8th Floor Plot No.R-1 Sector-40 Seawoods Nerul Navi
Mumbai-400706.
2. State Bank of India Life Insurance Ltd. Branch Office at Ballu
Tehsil and District Chamba Through its Branch Manager.
...... Appellants/Opposite parties No.1& 2.
Versus
1. Shri Rakesh Kumar son of late Shri Kishore Kumar Resident of
Mohalla Julakari Chamba Town Tehsil & District Chamba
(HP) Pin Code-176318
2. Shri Rajesh Kumar son of late Shri Kishore Kumar Resident of
Mohalla Julakari Chamba Town Tehsil & District Chamba
(HP) Pin Code-176318
......Respondents No.1 &2/Complainants.
3. H.P.(Parvatiya) Grameen Bank Obari Branch P.O. Sultanpur
Tehsil and District Chamba H.P. Pin Code-176314 Through its
Branch Manager.
......Respondent No.3/Opposite party No.3
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
SBI Life Insurance & Anr. Versus Rakesh Kumar & others
F.A. No.29/2018
For Appellants : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 &2: Mr.Divya Raj Singh Advocate.
For Respondent No3: Mr.Dharam Singh Chauhan vice
Mr.G.S.Rathour Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 11.01.2018 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission in consumer complaint No.40/2017 titled Rakesh Kumar & Anr. Versus State Bank of India Life Insurance & others.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Complainants namely Rakesh Kumar & another filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that father of complainants late Shri Kishore Kumar purchased SBI Life Insurance Policy Rinn Raksha Loan Scheme from opposite parties No.1 and 2 through opposite party No.3 amounting to Rs.351229/- (Three lacs fifty one thousand two hundred twenty nine). It is pleaded that father of complainants late Shri Kishore Kumar used to pay premium of policy regularly till his death. It is pleaded that Kishore Kumar died on 02.08.2012 and Smt. Beena Devi was mentioned as nominee in Insurance policy. It is pleaded that Insurance claim was rejected by the opposite parties and thereafter Smt. Beena Devi during her life time filed claim 2 SBI Life Insurance & Anr. Versus Rakesh Kumar & others F.A. No.29/2018 review petition before Claim Review Committee and her representation was rejected by Claim Review Committee vide letter dated 02.09.2013. It is pleaded that Smt. Beena Devi also expired on 30.07.2013. It is pleaded that after sudden death of father and mother of complainant within period of one year complainants were under deep shock and trauma. It is pleaded that legal notice was also issued to opposite parties. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not settle claim and committed deficiency in service. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1 and 2 pleaded therein that SBI Life Insurance has issued group Insurance scheme for the borrowers of loan subject to terms and conditions of Insurance policy. It is pleaded that present consumer complaint is barred by limitation under section 24A of Consumer Protection 1986. It is pleaded that complainants did not file any written application for condonation of delay in filing consumer complaint and present consumer complaint is barred under law of limitation. It is pleaded that deceased was suffering from lever disease and deceased suppressed material facts from opposite parties and complainants have no cause of action against opposite parties. It is pleaded that opposite 3 SBI Life Insurance & Anr. Versus Rakesh Kumar & others F.A. No.29/2018 parties No.1 and 2 did not commit any deficiency in service.
Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.3 pleaded therein that present consumer complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No.3. It is pleaded that opposite party No.3 only collected premium and sent the same to opposite party No.1. It is pleaded that Insurance policy in question was issued by opposite parties No.1 and 2. It is pleaded that when opposite party No.3 received information regarding death of Kishore Kumar then Branch Manager immediately informed the Insurance company regarding death and sent the required documents so that amount of claim could be released. It is pleaded that opposite party No.3 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.3 sought.
5. Complainants filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint. Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission partly allowed consumer complaint and ordered opposite parties No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay policy amount due under the policy to complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual payment. In addition Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission ordered that opposite parties No.1 and 2 would pay Rs.25000/- (Twenty 4 SBI Life Insurance & Anr. Versus Rakesh Kumar & others F.A. No.29/2018 five thousand) to complainants as compensation for mental harassment. In addition Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission ordered that opposite parties No.1 and 2 would pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) to complainants. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission appellants filed present appeal before State Commission.
6. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether independent written application under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for condonation of delay in filing consumer complaint should be filed and whether it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to remit back the matter to Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission for deciding afresh after removing material procedural illegality?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that Learned District Forum/Commission has committed material procedural illegality by way of not 5 SBI Life Insurance & Anr. Versus Rakesh Kumar & others F.A. No.29/2018 inviting independent written application under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for condonation of delay in filing consumer complaint and on this ground appeal filed by appellants be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that separate independent written application for condonation of delay under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 before Learned District Forum/Commission is essential in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice because section 24A is independent section under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and sufficient cause for not filing consumer complaint within stipulated period should be proved independently prior to admission of time barred original consumer complaint.
9. State Commission is of the opinion that appellants have legal right to file independent response to condonation application filed under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and State Commission is of the opinion that appellants have also legal right to adduce rebuttal evidence relating to application under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of the opinion that in the present matter appellants have been deprived to file their independent response to condonation application and appellants have also been deprived to adduce independent rebuttal evidence upon independent condonation application prior to admission of time barred consumer 6 SBI Life Insurance & Anr. Versus Rakesh Kumar & others F.A. No.29/2018 complaint. State Commission is of the opinion that Learned District Forum/Commission has committed material procedural illegality by way of condonation of delay without any independent written application under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to decide present appeal on merits unless material procedural illegality is not rectified.
See. AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1726 titled Shankarrao Versus Chandrasenkunwar. See AIR 1972 Supreme Court 749 titled State of West Bengal Versus The Administrator Howrah Municipality.
10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainants that order of Learned District Forum/Commission is strictly in accordance with laws and proved facts and does not warrant any interference from State Commission is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that Learned District Forum/Commission has committed material procedural illegality by way of admission of consumer complaint directly which was ipso facto barred under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 without any independent application under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to remand back the present matter to Learned 7 SBI Life Insurance & Anr. Versus Rakesh Kumar & others F.A. No.29/2018 District Forum/ Commission to remove material procedural illegality. It is well settled law that question of limitation is independent mixed question of laws and facts and sufficient cause for condonation of delay should be proved in independent manner in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice prior to admission of time barred consumer complaint. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
11. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal filed by appellants is allowed. Order of Learned District Forum/Commission is set aside and matter is remanded back to Learned District Forum/Commission Chamba H.P. with the directions that Learned District Forum/Commission will obtain independent written application from complainants under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and thereafter Learned District Forum/Commission will give opportunity to opposite parties to file response. Thereafter Learned District Forum/Commission will obtain evidence of complainants by way of affidavit(s) in affirmative upon written independent application filed under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 qua controversial facts and thereafter will give opportunity to opposite parties to adduce rebuttal evidence by way of affidavit(s). Thereafter Learned District Forum/Commission will obtain rebuttal evidence of complainants by way of affidavit(s) and thereafter Learned 8 SBI Life Insurance & Anr. Versus Rakesh Kumar & others F.A. No.29/2018 District Forum/ Commission will decide written application filed under section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 strictly as per laws and proved facts. Learned District Forum/Commission will dispose of entire matter within three months after receipt of certified copy of order because proceedings under Consumer Protection Act are time bound proceedings. Learned District Forum/Commission will issue notices to learned Advocates engaged by parties before Learned District Forum/ Commission. Observations will not effect merit of consumer complaint in any manner. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission.
12. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. File of learned District Forum/Commission alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith for compliance and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. F.A.No.29/2018 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Sunita Sharma Member 28.11.2019 Manoj 9