State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manbhawati Devi vs L I C on 29 April, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2010/2191 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. Manbhawati Devi a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. L I C A ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: ORDER RESERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No.2191 of 2010 (i) Smt. Manbhawti Devi w/o Late Radhey Shyam Verma, (ii)Upendra & (iii) Mahendra Verma Ss/o Late Radhey Shyam Verma, R/o U.P. Cycle & Machinery Stores near Tamsapul Akbarpur, Post Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar (U.P.) ...Appellant. Versus 1- Manager, L.I.C., Akbarpur, District: Ambedkar Nagar. 2- Senior Divisional Manager, Life I.C. of India, D.O. 30- Hazratganj, Lucknow. 3- Manager, Complex L.I.C., Hazratganj, District: Lucknow. 4- Zonal Manager, North Sector, Zonal Office, Jeevan Vikas, 16/18, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Kanpur U.P. 5- Chairman, Central Office, L. I.C., Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai (Maharastra) ....Respondents. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member. None for the appellant. Sri Sanjai Jaiswal for the respondents. Date 7.7.2015 JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- The appeal was taken up for admission on 29.4.2015.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the insured Sri Radhey Shyam Verma had a Life Insurance Policy bearing no. 210084030 dated 7.11.1986 for a sum (2) assured of Rs.50,000.00 with Accidental Benefit. Sri Verma expired on 4.5.1991 under mysterious circumstances, as a result of fire injuries and therefore, a case under Section 302 IPC Crime No.186 of 1991 was registered at P.S. Akbarpur, Faizabad. Thereafter, legal heirs of the deceased-insured filed a claim before the respondent LIC for favour of payment of the amount under insuracne. However, the claim was partly allowed and a sum of Rs.64,437.50 was paid by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim for accidental benefit of Rs.50,000.00. Aggrieved by this order, the nominees/LRs of the deceased-insured filed complaint case no.309 of 1993 before the Ld. DCDRF, Faizabad for redressal of their grievances. The complaint was allowed on 19.6.1998 and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the entire amount insured under the Policy with accidental benefits to the complainant/ appellants alongwith other consequential reliefs.
Aggrieved by this order, a Revision bearing no.138 of 1998 was filed before this Commission which was partly allowed on 27.8.2002 by a three member Bench and the complainants/claimants were directed to file a fresh representation with all relevant documents before the LIC for reconsideration of matter of repudiation with a speaking order. The LIC in compliance of order, reconsidered the claim and paid a sum of Rs.50,000.00 as Accidental Benefit to the claimants. The amount was accepted by the claimants and the matter was brought to an end.
(3)Thereafter, the claimants filed a fresh complaint bearing no.17 of 2006 before the Ld. DCDRF, Faizabad for payment of interest accrued on the amount of Rs.50,000.00. The Forum below after considering all facts and circumstances, rejected the complaint on 1.10.2009. Feeling aggrieved by this, the instant appeal was preferred on 31.12.2010. The appeal is barred by limitation for more than 365 days.
We have gone through the entire records of the case. Admittedly, the Insurance Company, in compliance of the order of the State Commission passed in Revision no.138 of 1998 dated 27.8.2002 paid a sum of Rs.50,000.00 to the appellants vide cheque no.377291 on 7.2.2003 and the amount was accepted by the complainants/appellants on the same date, thus, bringing an end of the Consumer and Service-Provider relationship between the parties. The second complaint bearing no.17 of 2006 was filed in the year 2006. It was prima-facie barred under Section 24 A of the Act, 68 of 1986. Furthermore, the impugned order was passed on 1.10.2009 and certified copy of the order was provided to the appellants/complainants on 7.10.2009 but the instant appeal was filed on 31.12.2010. Thus, the appeal is barred by the period of limitation also. No cogent reason or day-to-day explanation has been assigned for condonation of the delay. There is no remiss in the order dated 1.10.2009. It is based on facts, circumstances, evidence and directions given by the State Commission and, therefore, there is no scope for any interference in it. Besides this, the appellants/complainants have already (4) received the amount on 7.2.2003 but the complaint was filed in the year 2006 and, therefore, it was barred by the period of limitation as provided under Section 24 A of the Act 68 of 1986. There is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Sanjai Kumar) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA-II Court No.4 [HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar] MEMBER