Punjab

Sangrur

CC/352/2016

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Liberty Videocon Gen.Ins.Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajinder Sharma

18 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                        Complaint No. 352

Instituted on:  12.04.2016

                                                                       Decided on:    18.10.2016

 

Jarnail Singh son of Sarwan Singh, resident of village Bahadarpur, Tehsil and District Sangrur.      

                                                          …. Complainant

       

                                         Versus

 

1.     Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited, 10^th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Garg, Lower Parel, Mumbai through its Manager/MD/authorized signatory.

2.     The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Patiala Gate, Head Office, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur through its Branch Manager.                 

                                                        ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT  :         Shri Rajinder Sharma, Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1         :  Shri  Bhushan Garg,  Advocate                    

FOR OPP. PARTY No.2         :  Shri R.S.Bhangu Advocate                    

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

ORDER BY:     

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri  Jarnail Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant has a saving bank account with the OP number 2 and as per the advice of the OP number 1 the complainant purchased life time accident policy bearing number 4112200201-13-5000006-00-00 for Rs.1,00,000/- through OP number 2. Further case of the complainant is that after purchase of the policy, the complainant met with an accident on 1.7.2013 and in the accident the complainant suffered 80% disablement and a certificate in this respect was also issued by the Civil Surgeon, Sangrur on 26.11.2013.  Thereafter the complainant approached the OPs for getting the claim, but the same was not paid and in the last the OP number 1 in the month of March, 2014 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 5.2.2014.   The complainant earlier filed a complaint before this Forum on 26.2.2016, which was later on withdrawn.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as claim amount under the policy along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP No.1,  legal objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, that the present complaint is clearly time barred as the accident occurred on 1.7.2013 and mentioned that the complainant was shocked to receive repudiation letter dated 5.2.2014 from the OP number 1, whereas the complainant filed the complaint before this Forum on 12.4.2016.  It is stated that as per the policy the liability of OP number 1 arises only to pay Rs.1,00,000/- in case of accidental death or in case suffering of permanent total disability by the account holder insured under this policy.  It is stated that in the case of the complainant, being amputation of right mid thigh level, does not fall under purview of permanent total disablement as defined in the policy rather it is permanent partial disablement for which no coverage was taken, therefore, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP vide repudiation letter dated 5.2.2014.   On merits, it is stated that complainant had purchased this policy from OP number 1 through OP number 2. It is stated that the policy was issued by the OP in favour of the OP number 2 for the period from 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014, thereby covering its saving bank account holders subject to the terms and conditions. It is stated that the complaint is not entitled to get any relief, as the claim has rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 5.2.2014. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OP No.2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come in the court with clean hands, that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Op into unwanted litigation and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was having a saving bank account with the OP number 2 and has been regularly operating the same.  The purchase of the policy in question by the complainant from OP number 1 through OP number 2 is also admitted. It is stated that the claim has to be paid by the OP number 1 and nothing has to be done by the OP number 2.  The other allegations leveled in the claim has been denied.

 

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-4 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.C-5 copy of disability certificate, Ex.C-6 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.Op1/2 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP1/3 copy of terms and conditions and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit, Ex.Op2/2 letter dated 5.2.2104, Ex.OP2/3 copy of endorsement dated 8.3.2014 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the complaint, written reply, as well as evidence produced on the file and are of the opinion that the complaint deserves dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant was insured under the policy in question for Rs.1,00,000/- in case of accidental death for the period from 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014.  It is further an admitted fact that the complainant met with an accident on 1.7.2013 and in the accident suffered loss of his right limb of which a disability certificate to the tune of 80% has been issued by the Civil Surgeon, Sangrur, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that no claim is payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy  and that the complaint is hopelessly barred by time.

 

7.             We have very carefully perused the disablement certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon Sangrur, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5, wherein it has been stated that due to amputation ® mid thigh level, the complainant has suffered 80% disablement.  But, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that no claim is payable to the complainant in the present case, as the claim is only payable in case there is loss of limbs (both hands or both feet or one hand and one foot),  as mentioned in the written reply as well as in the policy, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP1/2.  But, in the present case, the complainant has suffered amputation of ® mid thigh level and as such is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy.   

 

8.             Another point raised by the learned counsel for OP number 1 is that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly barred by time, as the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP number 1 on 5.2.2014, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 12.4.2016 after a period of expiry of two years as the complainant was required to file the complaint within a period of two years as stipulated in section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  No doubt, the complainant earlier filed a complaint on 23.2.2016, but the same was withdrawn on 26.2.2016 with permission to file fresh one on the same cause of action.  But, the present complaint has been filed on 12.4.2016 and by that time the complaint has become barred by time in view of section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has cited the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bakhtawar Singh versus Sada Kaur 1997(1) RCR (Civil) 51 (Supreme Court), wherein it has been held if the suit is withdrawn even with the permission to file afresh, the mere permission to withdraw and to file suit afresh on the same cause of action will not extend the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act in filing fresh suit unless it is established that there was some formal defect in the earlier suit for which it was sought to be withdrawn.  Moreover, the application for withdrawal not produced to show any such reason.  The order of permission to withdraw produced, but did not indicate any such reason for granting such permission.  The plaintiff miserably failed to show as to what was the defect of jurisdiction or any other cause of like nature for which earlier suit was not competent.  As such, it is held that he is not entitled to the benefit of provision of section 14 of the Limitation Act and the suit filed afresh after expiry of limitation held to be barred by time.  The same is the position in the present case as the complainant has filed the present complaint after expiry of the limitation period of two years. 

 

9.             In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.     

Pronounced.

 

                October 18, 2016.

 

 

 

                                            (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                  

                                                                President

 

 

                                                             (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                 Member

 

 

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                  Member