Date of Filing :19.10.2020
Date of Disposal : 26.07.2021
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:26th JULY 2021
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
Mr KRISHNAMURTHY B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER
APPEAL No.721/2020
Mr Anjan Devkumar
S/o Late A Devakumar
Aged about 37 Years
R/at No.64, Margosa Road,
18th Cross, Malleswaram
Bengaluru – 560003
(By Mr J Sathiskumar) Appellant
-Versus-
1. HDFC Life InsuranceCompany Ltd.,
13th Floor, Lodha Excellus
Appolo Mils Compound
N M Joshi Marg
Mahalaxmi
Mumbai – 400 011
2. The Manager
HDB Financial Services Ltd.,
No.1, 1st & 2nd Floor, 14th Cross
Sampige Road, Malleswaram
Bengaluru- 560 003 Respondents
- :ORDER:-
Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 41 of CP Act 2019, challenging the Order dated 08.10.2020 passed in Consumer Complaint No.679/2020 by III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru.
2. The facts in brief of the Complaint is that the Complainant’s father availed a loan of Rs.1,87,00,000/- vide loan Account No.1800942 against property from OP2 on 04.10.2016, who felt that the repayment of loan is for a longer period, since life doesn’t come with any guarantee under unknown & unforeseen circumstances. Hence, never wanted to burden his legal heirs, he took an Insurance Policy from OP1under HDFC (Group Credit Protect plus Insurance Plan) vide Master Policy No.PP00054 covering the loan and period of insurance coveredwas for the period 23.02.2015 to 22.02.2025 by paying a onetime premium of Rs.77,418/-. On 24.12.2019 at about 5:15 am, the borrower A.Devakumar, the father of the Complainant died of Cardiac arrest, leaving behind his legal heirs including the Complainant herein. On 09.06.2020, the Complainant submitted the Group Insurance Claim Form and other related documents to OP2 claiming the insurance coverage. In the meantime, OP2 over phone instructed the Complainant to continue paying the monthly repayment of agreed instalments regularly, till the insurance amount is settled. Complainant having left with no other option paid six months EMI and thereafter and observing that the OPs did not respond properly for settling his Claim, he got issued a Legal Notice to OPs on 06.07.2020 for settling the claim. But, inspite of receipt of the Notice, they neither replied to the Notice nor settled the claim. Hence, he lodged the present Complaint, seeking direction to the OP1 to pay the insured amount of Rs.1,87,00,000/- as per the Terms of the Policy and also to direct OP2 to return the six months EMI paid by him after the demise of the Borrower, amounting Rs.14,06,490/-, etc.,
3. The District Commission after hearing the arguments on Admission, returned the Complaint to the Complainant to file a case against OP1 after repudiation and to file a separate Complaint against OP2 subject to pecuniary jurisdiction with the following observations :
(a) On 09.06.2020 Complainant submitted the Claim Form to OP2. But not to OP1. There is no chance of repudiation of the Claim by OP1. In the absence of repudiation of the Claim by OP 1, complaint against OP1 is pre-mature. The value of goods and services are also above one crore. Since there is no repudiation, the question of Cause of Action does not arise.
(b) In view of the decision reported in 2015(1) CPR-37(NC), it is a settled proportion of Law that, when there is no Repudiation of the Claim, the Complaint filed without repudiation suffers from pre-maturity.
(c) The Complaint against OP1 is pre-mature and value of service against OP2 is not properly valued. OP1 has nothing to do with claim against OP2 and Opposite Party No.2 is nothing to do with claim against Opposite Party No.1. Such Complaint is not tenable.
4. Aggrieved by the said Order, Complainant is in Appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order by allowing the Appeal.
5. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant on admission. Perused the records & the Impugned Order and issuance of Notice to the Respondents herein is dispensed with to avoid further delay.
6. We carefully examined the Appeal Memo and Order of the District Commission below, from which we could not find submission of Claim to OP2 and their denial, except filing a copy of Legal Notice dated 06.07.2020 calling upon the OPs to settle the Insurance Claim was rightly ordered by the Commission below by returning the Complaint to the Complainant to file a case against OP1 after repudiation and to file a separate complaint against OP2. Since the date of issuance of Legal Notice cannot be considered as the date of starting of Limitation. In this regard, we did not find any document placed by the Complainant either before Commission below or along with Appeal Memo as to the Claim made to OP1, before raising a Consumer Complaint explaining as to the delay in order to fit is within the provision of CP Act 1986. In this regard, it is to be noted herein limitation period for making insurance or reinsurance claim is decided by the relevant policy. In other words, the terms and conditions enumerated in the policy in question are bound by the insured and insurer where no time period is prescribed, a three years limitation applies, in general, period of limitation commencing on the date of the event triggering the claim or from the date, the claimant became aware of the insured event. Here in this case, the complainant firstly failed to make a claim to the OPs and secondly failed to explain to the OPs when he became aware of the insured event. It is therefore, if such claim is not made to the OPs fulfilling the terms and conditions of the policy issued in the name of insured filing complaint by invoke the provisions of CP Act, 2019 before the Commission below has to be held premature.
7. Yes, it is right, Section 69 of CP Act 2019 provides for Limitation period to admit a Complaint, unless it is filed within two years from the date on which Cause of Action has arisen. As repeatedly stated above, the complainant herein did not made a claim to the OPs and we were not explained as to when he became aware of the insured event. It is therefore, Commission below has rightly held that the date of issuance of Legal Notice cannot be considered as the date of Cause of Action to raise Consumer Complaint to saveonLimitation.
8. With such conclusion, issue of Legal Notice by the Complainant is rightly not considered as Cause of Action to file the present Complaint and rightly not admitted the Complaint by the Commission below, which is not required to be interfered with, by this Commission in exercise of power vested under Section 41 of CP Act 2019. Accordingly, Dismissed the Appeal.
9. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, free of cost immediately.
Lady Member Judicial Member President
*s
