Haryana

Panchkula

CC/206/2021

MR.K.C GAMBHIR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHFL PRAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON.

20 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	206 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	05.04.2021
Date of Decision	:	20.04.2021

                                                                                           

Sh. K.C.Gambhir, aged 84 years, R/o 151, GH-3, MDC, Sector-5, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                                    ….Complainant

Versus

DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Ltd. Sector-22-C, Outer Market, Chandigarh.

 

                                                                                   ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35  OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:                   Sh.Satpal, President.

                               Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                               Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:      Complainant in person.               

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.                  Today the case is fixed for consideration on its admissibility. Briefly stated the present complaint has been filed with the averments that the opposite party issued two policy bearing no.000124044 & 000131154 in the name of  Nidish and Udhbav, who are grandsons of the complainant. It is alleged that OP has been approached several times for cancellation of the aforesaid policies but no action has been taken by the OP. A letter dated 14.05.2014 was sent to Ombudsman Insurance Chandigarh who decided the matter vide case no. CHD-L-013-1314-0940. It is stated that the Ombudsman decided the complaint only in respect of policy no.000127604 & 000143152 which were in the name of the Akshay Kumar  son and wife Mrs.Anu.  It is prayed that OP be directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-, which were paid for two policies, alongwith interest @15%. Apart from this a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges has also been claimed.  

2.                  Today, during the course of hearing, the complainant has submitted the copy of policy no.000131154 and Policy no.000124044, which are in the name of Udhav Gambhir and Nidhish. Upon perusal of the said policies, it has been found that the said life assured, namely, Udhav Gambhir and Nidhish have  now attained the age of majority and thus, any grievance, if any, in the shape of the consumer complaint may be lodged  only by said life assured, namely,  Udhav Gambhir and Nidhish. As Sh. Udhav Gambhir and Nidhish are now no longer minors, hence the present complaint is not maintainable.

3.                  Now, coming to the issue of delay in filing the present compliant, it is found that the said policies were issued in the year of 2012 and thus, the grievances, if any, could have been lodged with the OP within the free look period of 15 days.  The prescribed period for filing consumer complaint is two years from the date of accrual of cause of action as per Section 69(1)of CP Act, 2019. No justification has been furnished for filing the complaint beyond the prescribed period of limitation. In the present case, the policies were taken in the year 2012 and thus, the period of limitation for filing of the complaint, if any, was upto year 2014. As per well settled legal proposition, the period of limitation cannot be stretched further by writing letters and sending legal notice. No reasonable reason has been furnished, which prevented the complainant to file the complaint within the prescribed period. Moreover, the complainant has preferred not to file an application seeking condonation of delay.

4.                  At this stage, we may, safely, rely upon the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal forum Delhi in 1^st appeal No.460 of 2010 titled as “ Delhi Development Authority Versus Pawan Sethi” wherein it has been held as under;

Section 24A-Limitation- Held-It is well established that the exchange of letters between the parties does not extend the period of limitation under the Act.

                     The Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Delhi, while deciding the case supra, has relied upon several case law which may be mentioned as under:-

1.      Ashok Kumar Sainia vs. Delhi Development Authority, FA No. 183/2007 decided on 21.03.2013 by the National Commission.
2.     Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. Vs. K.C. Aggarwal, IV (2013) CPJ 567 (NC)
3. Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Tej Refrigeration Industries Ltd. decided on 16.07.2013.
4. Harbhjan Sharma Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. 1 (2015) CPJ 672 (NC) wherein the National Commission took the similar view. The relevant portion of judgment is reproduced as under;

Mere writing of letters to the respondent authority and waiting for reply for unduly long time would not extend the period of limitation. It is well settled position of law that the requirement of limitation under Section 24A(1) is a mandatory requirement and the Consumer Forum  shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years of date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(V)              State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009(2) CLT Page 541,decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been held as under;

                               “Limitation –Held that provisions of Section 24A is pre-emptor 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 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.

                     “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”

          Apart from above, the Hon’ble Apex Court decided the case titled as Kandimalla Rahavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC) on similar lines wherein it is held as under;

Limitation-Time Barred-Insurance Claim-Fire in tobacco godown took place on 22/23 March, 1988-Intimation to Bank in whose favour stock hypothecated, given on 23 March itself-Insurance Company informed in November, 1992-Period of limitation expired-Section 24A-Consumer Protection Act bars Consumer For a from admitting complaint after two years from date of cause of action-Complaint before Consumer Forum filed in October 1997, dismissed as time-barred-Civil appeal filed-Contention, denial of insurance company in honouring claim received in Marc-Limitation period will commence from the date-Contention not acceptable-Cause of action not continuous till denial of claim-Filing of claim by Bank in 1988 in no way helped complainant-Insurance Company’s reply to legal notice in March, 1996, declining to issue claim forms, not resulted in extending limitation period. Complaint filed in 1997, without application of condonation of delay manifestly barred by limitation-Dismissal of complaint justified-No interference requires in appeal.

5.                  In view of the aforementioned factual as well as legal position it may, safely, be concluded that the present complaint has been preferred beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the same is accordingly dismissed in limini with liberty to the complainant to approach the competent authority/court if he is so advised. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 20.04.2021

 

Dr.Sushma Garg               Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini                      Satpal

                Member                                 Member                         President

 

Note:            Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                                   (Satpal)

                                                         President