Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1009/2016

Pawan Kumar Sharma s/o Mahesh Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Suresh Jalthuria

17 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1009/2016

 

Pawan Kumar Sharma s/o Mahesh Kumar Sharma, VPO Narehda Tehsil Kotputli, Jaipur.

Vs.

Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. regd. Office G I Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1010/2016

 

Vikas Kumar Sharma s/o Mahesh Kumar Sharma, VPO Narehda Tehsil Kotputli, Jaipur.

Vs.

Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. regd. Office G I Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune & ors.

 

Date of Order 17.5.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Vikas Sharma counsel for the appellant

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals involved common question of facts and law. Hence are decided by the common order. Facts are taken from Appeal No. 1009/2016.

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 4^th dated 1.8.2016 whereby the complaint has been dismissed on the ground of delay.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he issued a notice to the respondent but inspite of this no relief was given and thereafter complaint was filed which is within limitation. Hence, the claim should have been allowed.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment .

 

The Forum below has held that the policy was purchased on 10.9.2007 after payment of Rs. 25,000/- as first yearly premium. Thereafter no further premium was deposited by the appellant and as per policy conditions within two years of the

3

 

payment of first premium the policy could be renewed after deposit of unpaid regular premium. The policy could be revived only till 10.9.2009 but the appellant has not paid the premium and policy was lapsed on 10.9.2009 meaning thereby that cause of action has arisen to the complainant appellant on the above date but the present complaint has been filed on 13.5.2014 and the Forum below has rightly held that the complaint is time barred.

 

There is no merit in both the appeals not worth admission and liable to be rejected.

(Nisha Gupta )

President

nm