Complainant Palwinder Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to reconsider and pay Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum to him which was repudiated illegally and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and mental harassment, in the interest of justice.

2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he is having Saving account in the Central Co-operative Bank bearing Account No.3827. He took insurance policy under group personal accident death scheme vide policy No.10892085 from Bharti Axa General Insurance Company through Central Co-operative Bank Branch Dera Baba Nanak. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 had internal agreement with each other. They deducted premium from his saving account and paid to the opposite party. As per the terms and conditions of the policy he and his family is entitled for accident claim upto Rs.5,00,000/-. His wife met with an accident due to leakage of cooking gas and died. He lodged insurance claim before the opposite party no.1 and they refer the same to the opposite party no.2 for the settlement but the opposite party no.2 repudiated his legal claim illegally without any justification. Opposite party no.1 also gave him number of reminders to the opposite party no.2 but till date the opposite party no.2 not rectified the same. The opposite party no.1 again wrote a letter on 4.1.2016 reference no.396 regarding the said matter but of no avail. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written reply through its counsel by taking preliminary objections to the effect that there is no relationship of service provider and consumer between the complainant and opposite party as such the present complaint does not lie against the opposite party and from the perusal of complaint it is clear that if there is any dispute it is between the complainant and the opposite party no.2 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1.  On merits, it was submitted that it was correct that complainant was having account with the bank, however it was denied being incorrect that the insurance policy in question was issued to the complainant through the branch of bank. There is no agreement between the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4    Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its written reply through its counsel by taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred as the wife of the complainant met with an accident on 20.04.2012, died on 29.04.2012 and the claim was repudiated by opposite party vide letter dated 09.01.2013 and the present complaint has been filed on 28.03.2016 after the lapse of three years from the repudiation of claim. Therefore the present complaint is time barred and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.  On merits, it was submitted that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 09.01.2013 as per terms and conditions of the policy. Firstly the policy was issued for the period 24.04.2012 to 23.04.2014 whereas the alleged occurrence took place on 20.04.2012 before the commencement of the risk. Secondly the wife of the complainant was not insured under the policy. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any claim from the opposite party. No letter dated 04.02.2016 as alleged was received by the opposite party. The alleged letter if any has been issued by opposite party no.1 in connivance with complainant in order to bring the complaint within limitation. Moreover, it was settled law that once the claim is repudiated further correspondence does not give any fresh new cause of action. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite arty. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.      Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jagtar Singh Branch Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence.

7.     Counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Kamal Budhiraja, Authorized Signatory Ex.OP-2/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/6 and closed the evidence.

8.        We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the OP2 insurer’s repudiation (Ex.OP2/2 dated 09.01.2013 - by way of ‘No Claim’) of the ‘fire-accident’ death-claim (Ex.OP2/6) alleging absence of insurance ‘coverage’ to ‘deceased’ life Ms Rajni Bala (wife of the complainant) who died on 29.04.2012 on account of severe ‘fire-burns’ received in ‘gas-stove’ accident on 20.04.2012 whereas the ‘Period of Insurance’ for the related GPA policy # APG/IO892085/ P3/04/ DSP 314 has been with effect from 24.04.2012 to 23.04.2014, only.

9.       We, however find that the OP2 insurers’ first objection has been to the point/issue of limitation i.e., the complaint being time-barred. The complainant has neither filed the requisite application for condonation of ‘delay’ explaining its reasons nor has otherwise claimed/ proved his complaint to be ‘alive’ and within the statutory limitation-period as of prescribed ‘2’ years. The OP2 insurers had repudiated the impugned claim on 09.01.2013 vide Ex.OP2/2 and the present complaint has been filed on 28.03.2016 i.e., beyond the two years period of statutory limitation and is thus not-maintainable on this very count, alone. Even, on merits, the complainant has failed to establish insurance policy ‘coverage’ to the deceased life whereas the OP2 insurers have proved on record that the related policy (effective from 24.04.2012 to 23.04.2014) was not in existence on the date of the alleged fire-accident i.e., 20.04.2012.

10.      In the light of the all above, we do not find the hue of actionable merit (under the Act) in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.  

                                                                          (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                  President

ANNOUNCED:                                                         (Jagdeep Kaur)

October, 25 2016.                                                                Member                   

*MK*