These are a set of 140 Revision Petitions, listed in the three groups as Lakshmi Bai and others, Chaya Bai and others and Tulsi Bai and others. The petitioners were complainants before the concerned district fora. The respondent in all these cases are ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (hereinafter referred to as ICICI LGIC), who were OPs before the district fora. 2. All the Cases pertain to claims of insurance cover of Rs.50,000/- in the event of death, under the Vivekananda Insurance Scheme of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, implemented by the respondent/Insurance Companies. This scheme was evolved for the protection of the persons below the poverty line and in the age group of 18 to 65 years. In the event of death or permanent incapacitation of any such person, the Insurance Company designated for the district concerned, was required to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The claims were to be considered in consultation with the Nodal Officer of the district. 3. The scheme also contemplated that the Insurance Company for the district will be responsible for obtaining the claims through the designated local officers and for making the payment within a period of 15 days. Delaying of the decision, either on the ground of absence of final report in the FIR, filing of charge-sheet, postmortem report etc. was specifically disallowed, under the scheme. 4. In some of these cases, consumer complaints have been filed after lapse of more than two years from the death of the concerned individual. The district fora came to the conclusion that the cause of action arose on the date of death and therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24-(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, all such complaints have been dismissed by the concerned district fora. Appeals against dismissal of these complaints, have been considered by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission has noted that provision in Section 24-A itself allows the complaint to be filed beyond the period of limitation, if the complainant is able to satisfy the forum about the reasons that caused such delay. 5. In the matter of Lakshmi Bai Vs. ICICI LGIC, the State Commission has noted that the insured had died on 17.5.2006 and the Nodal Officer forwarded the complete claim form to the Insurance Company on 21.6.2006. The Insurance Company was required to settle the claim within 15 days i.e. 6.7.2006. The State Commission therefore, observed that even with reference to 6.7.2006, the date of consumer complaint filed on 17.9.2009, would be more than three years and therefore, barred by limitation. Therefore, the State Commission dismissed the appeals of the Complainants. 6. In Tulsi Bai and others Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors, the State Commission has observed that some of the appellants have sought condonation of delay on the ground of their poverty and ignorance, as reasons for not approaching the District Forum in time. Such plea has been rejected by the State Commission as not acceptable in explanation of the delay. Hence, the appeals have been dismissed by the State Commission. Similarly, in Chaya Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., the State Commission has dismissed the appeals on the ground of that no justification was offered for the delays ranging from 7 months and one and a half years, which could be considered for acceptance under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. 7. These revision petitions have been filed on behalf of the complainants alleging that their petitions has been dismissed on erroneous application of the legal principle of commencement of cause of action and not on merits. The matter was heard on 6.12.2010 and reserved for orders. In the meanwhile, an application was received from respondent No.2, Reliance General Insurance Company and, in the interest of justice, it was decided to give them an opportunity to be heard. The matter was finally heard on 13.07.2011. We have also perused the documents filed by the two sides. 8. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Complainants are required to inform the Nodal Officer about the incident of death or incapacitation, as the case may be. Date wise details have been filed in support of the assertion that the claims were not only made but also scrutinized by the nodal officers and sent to the respondents. Thereafter, until the payment of the sum assured, it remains a case of continuous cause of action. It was further argued that, in the event of rejection of the claim, the cause of action would again arise from the date of such rejection. 9. Per contra, the report filed on behalf of respondent-1/ICICI Lombard, would have us believe that in most of these cases, the claims were filed after the prescribed time limit and in some, after the scheme had ended. These details may give some idea of what may have happened. But, they certainly cannot upset the findings of the fora below on the fact of delay in the cases of the individual petitioners. 10. The term “cause of action”, as observed by H’ble Supreme Court of India in Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. Vs. National insurance Co. Ltd. III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC), “has not been defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 nor in the Code of Civil Procedure but is of wide import. It has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. Generally, it is described as “bundle of facts”, which if proved or admitted entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. Pithily stated, “cause of action” means the cause of action for which the suit is brought. “Cause of action” is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. In the context of imitation with reference to a fire insurance policy, undoubtedly, the date of accrual of cause of action has to be the date on which the fire breaks out.” 11. Similarly, in State Bank of India Vs. B S Agricultural Industries, II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC), Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that: “ It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory 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. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in section 24-A is sort of legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed with the limitation period prescribed hereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of section 24-A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.” 12. Accordingly, in the present matter, the question of limitation and that of accrual of the cause of action, has to be considered in the light of the nature of the scheme. We have mentioned its salient aspects in an earlier para of this order. The entire process contemplated therein is a brief one and starts only with the event of death/incapacitation of the beneficiary. Clearly therefore, the cause of action, for the purposes of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, arises on the date of death. In so far as the Respondent/insurance companies are concerned, there can be no cause of action if no claim is made under the Scheme. In cases where such a claim is made i.e. forwarded by the nodal officer to the Respondent, the latter are given 15 days, under the Scheme, to make the payment. 13. The cases where such payment is not made, would fall in one of the following categories— 1). Where no claim is made either with nodal officer or the Insurance Company, within 2 years of date of death such claims shall be barred by limitation. 2). Cases where claim is made to nodal officer or nodal officer has forwarded the claim to Insurance Company or claim has been directly filed with Insurance Company within 2 years of the death and the claim has remained undecided. In such a case the cause of action will continue till the day the Respondent/insurance company pays or rejects the claim. 3). In a case where the claim is rejected by the Respondent/insurance company, the cause of action arises again from the date of such rejection. 14. In the above cases, the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, cannot be barred on the ground that the jurisdiction of the consumer fora was not invoked within two years from the date of death/incapacitation. Any contrary view in the matter, will result in the claimant/consumer being penalized for the delay caused by the Respondent/insurance company. 15. The revision petitions are accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. The cases falling in the categories mentioned above stand remanded to the concerned District fora for consideration afresh, in the light of the above observations. The parties shall bear their own costs. |
