DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.348 of 20-07-2011 Decided on 08-08-2011
Balwant Singh S/o Sh. Desh Singla, aged about 47 years, Resident of H.No.23965, Street No.16/2, Dhobiana Road, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Regd., Office 6th Floor, Vaman Centre, Makhwana Road, Off Andheri Kulra Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059, through its M.D. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mall Road, Bathinda, through its Manager.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.B.S.Mann, counsel for the complainant. Opposite parties not summoned. ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant on the inducement of the opposite party No.2, purchased Life Insurance Policy from the opposite parties. The opposite parties induced the complainant to refund the total amount deposited by him with the opposite parties during the term of the policy alongwith profit, insurance claim in case of death. The officials of the opposite party No.2 had also assured the complainant that he shall have right to withdraw the amount deposited by him at any time in case of need. The complainant has alleged that the officials of the opposite party No.2 obtained the signatures of the complainant on Proposal Form and some blank papers. The opposite party No.2 issued a Policy No.001408481 to the complainant. The complainant deposited Rs.6,376/- with the opposite party No.2 through receipt dated 15.01.2008, Rs.3,188/- through receipt No.7893040 dated 18.08.2008 and Rs.3,188/- through receipt No.9567832 dated 16.01.2009 and in this way, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.12,752/- to the opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainant was not in a position to continue with the said Policy and to deposit the amount of premium with the opposite parties and as such, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 with a request to refund the amount of Rs.12,752/- deposited by him with the opposite party No.2 but the opposite party No.2 conveyed the complainant to refund the amount after completion of formalities. The complainant had been regularly visiting the office of the opposite party No.2 from time to time with a request to cancel the abovesaid policy and to refund the amount of the complainant, already deposited by him but the opposite parties have been postponing the matter on one or the other pretext and conveyed him that he shall get other benefits on the said amount including interest and bonus etc. at the time of getting the refund of his amount but till date, the opposite parties did not refund even a single penny to the complainant. The officials of the opposite parties proclaimed that the complainant is required to deposit the remaining installments of the premium amount and only then they shall refund the total amount to the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that no such condition of the completion of 10 years was conveyed by the opposite parties to the complainant at the time of issuance of the policy. The terms and conditions of the policy were also never read over and explained to the complainant rather they obtained the signatures of the complainant only on the Proposal Form and some blank printed papers and the policy was sent after a considerable delay from the date of purchasing the policy in question. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 11.06.2011 to the opposite parties but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. Preliminary hearing is given to the complaint. Record placed on file by the complainant perused. 3. The contention of the complainant is that he has taken a policy on the allurement of the opposite parties and he had deposited the first premium with the opposite party No.2, who issued a policy No.001408481 to the complainant. The complainant has also deposited Rs.6,376/- vide receipt dated 15.01.2008, Rs.3,188/- vide receipt No.7893040 dated 18.08.2008 and Rs.3,188/- vide receipt No.9567832 dated 16.01.2009. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs.12,752/- to the opposite parties. The complainant has alleged that as he wanted the refund of amount deposited by him as policy premium i.e. to the tune of Rs.12,752/-, he approached the opposite parties regularly and the opposite parties have failed to return the same but to prove his version, he has placed nothing on file. 4. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that no correspondence has been done by the complainant since the deposit of the premium dated 16.01.2009. He has sent a legal notice on 11.06.2011 i.e. after much delay. A bare perusal of complaint shows that this complaint is instituted on 20.07.2011 whereas the cause of action if any, has arisen from the deposit of last premium on 16.01.2009 by the complainant. He has filed the present complaint on 20.07.2011 which is after a lapse of 2 years whereas the permissible period under the 'Act' to file a complaint is within 2 years from the date of cause of action. As per Section 24-A of the 'Act' which is read as under:- “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 (10, a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies 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.” As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 (2) CLT 541, wherein it has been held that:- “(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24A – Limitation – Held that provisions of Section 24A is pre-emptory 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 – As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing – If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality – The aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24A – Limitation – Cause of action to the complainant accrued on June 7, 1994 and complaint filed on 05.05.1997 – Neither application for condonation of delay nor any sufficient cause shown – The question of condonation of delay in filing the complaint does not arise – Complaint barred by time and ought to have been dismissed as such – The appeal allowed – The orders of Foras below liable to be set aside and complaint dismissed as time barred.” 6. In the case in hand, no application has been moved by the complainant for the condonation of delay. Moreover, no sufficient cause has been quoted in the complaint itself for delay. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is time barred. Thus, this complaint is dismissed in limini without any order as to cost. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced 08-08-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
|
