State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sat Pal vs The New India Assurance Company ... on 1 June, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.697 of 2007
Date of Institution : 18.05.2007
Date of decision : 01.06.2012
Sat Pal son of Sh.Sevak Lal resident of Ward No.8, near Ravi Dass Mandir, Indri,
District Karnal (Haryana).
...Appellant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Limited, 29, Dugri Road, Ludhiana through
Divisional Manager.
...Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 22.2.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents : Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
VERSION OF THE APPELLANT
Amarjit brother of Sat Pal had taken the Group Janta Personal Accident Policy in which Sat Pal appellant, Narati Devi, Kamal Kumar, Vijay Kumar & Sewak Lal was also covered. The policy was valid for the period from 14.6.2000 to 13.6.2005. It was for Rs.20,000/-. The appellant was the nomine in the said insurance for his brother Amarjit.
2. It was further pleaded that during the subsistence of the policy, Amarjit drowned in Western Yamuna Canal on 24.4.2002. The appellant along with Sheo Ram personally visited the respondent and intimated to them on 5.6.2002 about the death of Amarjit and also supplied the death certificate, DDR and other claim papers. The appellant had sent letter dated 28.10.2002 to Karamjeet Singh, AAO of the respondents. Thereafter, registered letter dated 3.5.2005 was also sent to the respondents. Ultimately legal notice was sent on 20.9.2005 for insurance First Appeal No.697 of 2007 2 claim. The respondents replied vide letter dated 16.1.2003 that the insurance claim was beyond the period permissible under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the claim was already repudiated on 24.1.2003. Hence the complaint for recovery of insurance claim of Rs.20,000/-. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
VERSION OF THE RESPONDENTS
3. The respondents filed written reply. It was admitted that M/s SGM Welfare Services Society Ahmedgarh had obtained the insurance policy in question which was valid for the period from 14.6.2000 to 13.6.2005 for Rs.20,000/- each under the Group Janta Personal Accident Policy. Amarjit was also one of the beneficiary under the policy and the appellant was the nominee of Amarjit.
4. It was further pleaded that the insurance policy is a contract in itself and parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance policy contains the procedure and stipulation of time for lodging the claim. It was submitted that M/s SGM Welfare Cooperative Society, Ahmedgarh had never obtained the policy. Rather it was SGM Welfare Services Society Ahmedgarh, who had obtained the policy for its members.
5. It was denied if Amarjit had met with an accident at Western Yamuna Canal and drowned on 24.4.2002. It was also denied if the appellant along with Sheo Ram had visited the office of respondents on 5.6.2002 or if documents along with death certificate, DDR etc. were supplied to the respondents. The respondents had received for the first time letter dated 9.1.2003 from Sat Pal appellant which was received by the respondents on 16.1.2003 intimating the death of Amarjit. Legal notice dated 20.9.2005 was received by the respondents, but it was denied if any letter dated 28.10.2002 was received by Karamjit Singh, AAO of respondent.
6. It was further pleaded that the terms and conditions of Group Janta Personal Accident Policy disclosing the permissible period for filing the claim was supplied to insured SGM Welfare Services Society, Ahmedgarh for further passing it to the beneficiaries. It was denied if the repudiation letter dated 24.1.2003 was not served on the appellant. It was denied if the letter of First Appeal No.697 of 2007 3 repudiation was received by the appellant through the reply dated 10.10.2005. It was also denied if the cause of action had arisen when the respondents had replied to the legal notice dated 10.10.2005. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the parts of the respondents. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:
7. Parties produced the affidavits / documents in support of their respective versions.
8. The learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana ( in short "District Forum") dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 22.2.2007. The complaint was held barred by limitation.
9. Hence the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that the appellant had remained silent till the legal notice dated 15.9.2005 was sent.
Although the claim of the appellant was already repudiated in January, 2003. Hence it was prayed that appeal be dismissed.
11. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
12. The appellant had sent one letter to the respondents, copy of which has been proved as Ex.C5. It is undated. Thereafter, legal notice was sent on 15.9.2005 (Ex.C5). The appellant has also proved the written reply to legal notice dated 10.10.2005 (Ex.C8). It was sent by the respondents to counsel for the appellant informing him that the insurance claim was already repudiated vide letter dated 24.1.2003. The respondents have also produced the repudiation letter dated 24.1.2003 as Ex.R5. They have also proved the letter dated 19.1.2003 sent by the appellant to the respondents for payment of insurance claim.
13. Admittedly, Amarjit brother of the appellant had died on 24.4.2002 by drowning in the Western Yamuna Canal. The present complaint was filed by the appellant on 21.3.2006 i.e. about 4 years from the date of death of Amarjit. If the respondents had not replied and the appellant had not received the letter of First Appeal No.697 of 2007 4 repudiation dated 24.1.2003 the cause of action had arisen to the appellant. The complaint could have been filed by the appellant as the matter was pending with the respondents and they were not settling the claim. The appellant could not have waited indefinitely. Even if the appellant had not received letter dated 24.1.2003 repudiating the claim, the appellant could not remained silent for such a long period of about 4 years.
14. Under Section 24-A, the time for filing the complaint in the District Forum is for two years from the date when the cause of action had arisen to the complainant. Section 24-A is reproduced as under:-
"[24-A. Limitation period.--(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 satisfied 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.]"
15. The provisions of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act were interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme in the judgement reported as "State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I)" 2009 CTJ 481 (Supreme Court) (CP) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:-
"8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer First Appeal No.697 of 2007 5 forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, 'shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside."
16. This view of law was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment reported as "V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) v. Anita Sena Fernandes" 2011 CTJ 1 (SUPREME COURT) (CP). It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
"Section 24A(1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words, the consumer forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on First Appeal No.697 of 2007 6 which the cause of action has arisen. This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under Section 24A(1). If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2), the consumer forums will have no option but to dismiss the same. Reference in this connection can usefully be made to the recent judgments in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), 2009 CTJ 481 (SC)(CP)=(2009) 5 SCC 121 and Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Company v. National Insurance Company and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (SC)(CP)=(2009) 7 SCC 768."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP)', has held that making of representations and serving of legal notices do not extend the limitation. It was held as under:-
"A bare reading of the impugned order shows that all these factual aspects have been duly taken into consideration by the Commission and we are in complete agreement with the finding by the Commission that the tiling of claim by the Bank on 14th July, 1988, would not have, in any way, helped the appellant. On their own showing, for the first time, only on 6th November, 1992 and then again on 26th October, 1995, the appellant had requested the Insurance Company to issue claim form to enable them to prefer a claim which request was declined by the insurance First Appeal No.697 of 2007 7 company on 21st March, 1996. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Insurance Company's reply dated 21st March, 1996 to the legal notice dated 4th January, 1996, declining to issue the forms for preferring a claim after a lapse of more than four years of the date of fire, resulted in extending the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 24A of the Act. We have no hesitation in holding that the complaint filed on 24th October, 1997 and that too without an application for condonation of delay was manifestly barred by limitation and the Commission was justified in dismissing it on that short ground."
18. Therefore, the complaint filed by the appellant on 21.3.2006 was clearly barred by limitation.
19. There is no merit in the appeal and same is dismissed.
20. The arguments in this case were heard on 24.5.2012 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Sekhon), Member June 01, 2012.
Davinder