Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/990/2019

Yogesh Bhalla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited First Address: Unit No. 1904, 19th Floor, Parinee Crescenz - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Mohan Kansal Adv.

19 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	990 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	01.10.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	19.09.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Yogesh Bhalla son of Sh.K.S.Bhalla, aged 62 years, resident of H.No.1645, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh 160019

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited through its Managing Director.

    1^st Address:- Unit No.1904, 19^th floor, Parinee Crescenzo, “G” Block, Bandara Kurla complex, BKC Road, near MCA Club, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra.

    2^nd Address:-Unit 601 & 602, Raheja, Titanium, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400063

    3^rd Address:-#61/62, Kalpataru Synergy, Opp. Grand Hyatt., Vakola, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 40055.

2]  Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Office through its Manager.

    1^st Address:- SCO 208-209, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-a, Chandigarh 160022

3]  Vedant Sharma, Agent of OPs No.1 & 2, through Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, Unit No.1904, 19^th floor, Parinee Crescenzo, “G” Block, Bandara Kurla Complex, BKC Road, near MCA Club, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

Present:-  Ms. Ekta, Adv. proxy for Sh.Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Counsel for the complainant.

 

           Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the OPs

 

 

PER B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

 

        Briefly stated, the complainant believing the assurances of agent of OPs obtained Insurance Policy No.500-1580819 (Ann.C-1) of OP Company but surprised to note that the policy was contrary to the assurance of agent of OPs. Accordingly, he raised the matter with OPs whereupon OP No.3 took away the policy document for corrections but did not return it. Thereafter, the complainant paid two further premiums under said policy in 2009 and 2010, but surprised to received letter dated 30.8.2013 from OP No.1 informing that his policy stands lapsed on 11.8.2011 and further mention about enclosure of cheque of Rs.38,837.34 but no such cheque was enclosed. Then the complainant alleging the deficiency in service on the part of OPs, filed a consumer Complaint No.225/2014 wherein the complainant could not furnish correct address of OPs and as such the said complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution on 9.7.2014 (Ann.A-4). 

         It is submitted that it is only on 21.7.2019 that the complainant came to know about the fresh addresses of OPs and as such preferred the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

 

         The OPs No.1 & 2 instead of filing written version, have moved an application for dismissal of the complaint stating that once the Forum/Commission has already taken cognizance of the matter and has dismissed the previous complaint of the complainant i.e. CC/225/2014 on 9.7.2014 for want of prosecution, the only remedy available to him was to either file an appeal/revision before the Hon’ble State Commission or to file an application or restoration of the complaint.  It is also submitted that the complaint is barred by law to file a fresh complaint after 5 years of dismissal of his earlier complaint.  It is stated that the complaint is barred by limitation as the policy in question was issued in the year 2008, terminated in 2013 and surrender value was also paid in Sept., 2013 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2019 much after the limitation period. It is prayed that the complaint not being maintainable be dismissed. 

         The complainant has filed reply to said application of OPs No.1 & 2 stating therein that since the earlier compliant was not decided on merits and was dismissed in default for  non-appearance of the complainant, which cannot be overlooked and therefore, the second consumer complaint is permissible.  It is also stated that the complainant has not received any cheque or amount of Rs.38,837.34 from the OPs as mentioned “enclosed” in their letter dated 30.8.2013.  Lastly it is prayed that the application of the OPs be dismissed. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record including written arguments.

 

6]       The perusal of record proves that the complainant admittedly filed a consumer complaint about the same grievance as in the present complaint in the year 2014, which was dismissed in default on 9.7.2014. Thereafter, the complainant filed the present complaint on  01.10.2019 for the same grievance as in the previous complaint i.e. after a period of more than 5 years from the date of earlier decision/order. Therefore, it is clearly made out that the present complaint is barred by limitation as prescribed in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

7]       In view of above discussion & findings, we find merit in the application of OPs for dismissal of the complaint and therefore, the same is allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint being barred by limitation is not maintainable and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

8]       Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off. 

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19.09.2023                             

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER