BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 44/2012.
THIS THE 21st DAY OF JUNE 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Saleemuddin S/o. Late Saudagar Mahaboob Ali
aged about 56 years, Occ: Petty Business, R/o. H.No. 2-3-45, Androon Qilla, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- Bajaj Allianz, represented by its Manager,
Station Road, Opp: Public Garden, Raichur.
CLAIM :- For to direct the the opposite to return the
premium amount of Rs. 25,000/- with bonus etc.,
Date of institution :- 11-06-2012.
Date of disposal :- 21-06-2012.
Complainant represented by Sri. I.M. Patil, Advocate.
ORDER ON ADMISSION
By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against opposite Bajaj Allianz U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to return the premium amount of Rs. 25,000/- with bonus etc.,
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, he requested the opposite to issue regular one time premium payment policy by paying an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. But opposite issued annual regular premium policy dt. 28-12-2007 payable of Rs. 25,000/- per annum. After receipt of the said policy, opposite wrote a letter to complainant dt. 29-12-2007 by offering (15) days Free look period and if, he did not agree to the said proposal, it will return the policy amount.
Further case of complainant is that, he wrote one letter dt. 02-01-2008 by RPAD to opposite for canceling the said policy and to return the premium amount, he also personally requested the opposite to cancel the policy and to return the amount, thereafter, he wrote another letter to opposite in the month of April-2012 by Speed Post. He met personally the office of opposite in the first week of May-2012 and requested to cancel the policy and to return the premium amount. But opposite not considered his request and shown its negligence. Hence, he filed this complaint against opposite for the relief’s as noted in the complaint.
3. In-view of the facts pleaded by him. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether this complaint is under limitation as per section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act.?
2. What order?
4. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In Negative.
(2) In-view of the finding on Point No. 1 we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 & 2:-
5. It is the duty of this Forum to see as to whether complaint filed by this complainant-consumer is under limitation as per section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. This provision is preemptory in nature, as such, it is bounden duty of us to see as to whether this complaint is under limitation of two years from the date of cause of action or not. In this regard we have followed the principles of the ruling reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2210 State Bank of India V/s. B.S. Agriculture Industry.
6. In the light of the mandatory requirements of section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act and in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said reported case. We have appreciated the facts pleaded by the complainant in his complaint to see as to whether this complaint is in time without deciding the claim on merits.
7. In the instant case policy, relied by the complainant is dt. 28-12-07 which was issued by opposite after the receipt of premium of Rs. 25,000/-. It appears from further pleadings of complainant that, offer made by opposite dt. 29-12-2007 as regards to (15) days Free look period was not agreed by him. Further pleading are very much clear regarding letter written by him to opposite dt. 02-01-2008 by RPAD to cancel the policy and to return the premium amount. He also personally request, but it was not considered. Further correspondences made by him dt. 11-06-2012 and 16-08-2012 and issuance of legal notice are of the year 2012. In the circumstances stated above, we are of the clear view that, the cause of action to file Consumer Complaint to this complaint was on 02-01-2008 when he wrote a letter to opposite by RPAD and the date of his personal request but not on 16-04-2012 and onwards. Hence the complaint has to be filed by him within two years from 02-01-2008. Admittedly this complaint was filed on 11-06-2012 and also no application U/sec.24(A)(2) of C.P. Act is filed for to condone the delay. As regards to correspondences made between him with opposite dt. 16-04-2012 or his visit to the office of opposite in the month of May-2012 or the date of legal notice to opposite are not enlarging the time period of two years limitation. Hence pleadings in this regard are not helpful for complainant to say that, the cause of action to file his complaint is as on 16-04-2012 and onwards is not correct.
We have followed the principles of the following rulings.
(1) 2001 CPR 296 Mark International V/s. Bank of India & Ors.
(2) IV (2009) VPJ 230 Ducklas Antony V/s. Secretary Kerala Electricity Board & Ors.
(3) 2000 CPJ 181 Dr. Jayprakash & Others V/s. Aleem Construction Pvt. Company Ltd., and another.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, and in view of the pleadings of his complaint, this complaint is barred by limitation. Accordingly we answered Point No-1 in Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
9. In view of our finding on Point No- 1, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed, as it is time barred.
Intimate the complainant accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 21-06-12)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
