1.                Heard on the point of admissibility of the complaint. Perusal of the complaint reveals that Ms.Anita Chopra(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘complainant’) has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s.Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited and others (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Ops’) with the brief averments that OP1 and OP2 through OP3 approached the complainant and her father Sh.Brij Bihari to sell the insurance policy and informed the complainant and her father that the policy has following feature “The investment will be invested in protected plans i.e. Unit Linked. It will be yield from 12 to 14% interest annually. Money can be withdrawn after one year. So, the complainant purchased two policies. Though, said conditions are missing not there in the policy. Even the terms and conditions are also against the policy and rules framed by the Ministry of Finance and IRDA i.e. Insurance Regulatory Authority. The terms and conditions were framed only to mis-sell the policy to poor persons and to cause loss to them and to gain to themselves. Though, the same is against the policy as well as rules of the Government of India and also these are not approved by IRDA. All the terms and conditions run contrary to the assurance given by the Ops which are not acceptable to the complainant. All the Ops refused to comply with the assurance given by the agent to the complainant. The reason to purchase two policies bearing No.ASV2246031 and ASV2246159 for the annual premium of Rs.25,000/- and the same was paid by the complainant for three years for each policy and in this way, the Ops have received Rs.75,000/- for each policy for all Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant surrendered the policies and sought the refund of the premium of both the policies alongwith all other benefits but instead of refunding the whole amount, the Ops refunded only Rs.43,522/- against each policy on 25.11.2011 which amounts to unjust enrichment. Though, the father of the complainant purchased and made payment for study of the complainant and the money was paid from his pension by starving. The Ops are bound to pay the full amount with all benefits as per the policy and rules made by IRDA. A notice dated 8.6.2012 was issued to the Ops but in vain. Hence, this complaint.

2.                It is apparently clear from the contents of the complaint that the Ops had refunded the amount of Rs.43,522/- against the each policy on 25.11.2011 to the complainant So, the cause of action has been accrued to the complainant on 25.11.2011 when the Ops had refunded the aforesaid amount. However, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 20.11.2014, whereas, the complaint was to be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action accrued as per the Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is clearly time barred. 

3.                Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides the period of Limitation Period, which describes as under:-

i)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.

ii) 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.

4.                Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported as State Bank of India vs.M/s.B.S.Agriculture Industries (I)-(2009) CPJ-481, wherein, it was held that the provisions of Section 24-A are peremptory in nature and requires Consumer 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. That 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. That the Consumer Fora’s were debarred from entertaining any complaint, which was beyond the period of limitation. Para -8 of the said judgment reads as under:-

“It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer 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.”       

5.                From the perusal of the above said provisions, it is clear that the present complaint is clearly time barred. Furthermore, the complainant has also not moved any application for condonation of delay explaining her sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of limitation and further, she has not assigned any sufficient or specific reasons in the complaint for not filing the present complaint within time.

6.                So, in view of the above discussion, we are of the view that complaint of the complainant is time barred and the same is not admitted. However, the complainant is at liberty to file the fresh complaint after filing the application for condonation of delay for redressal of her grievance. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

          (Sat Paul Garg)            (R.L.Ahuja)

                     Member                       President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:31.12.2014

(Gurpreet Sharma)