NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4179/2009

BRIJ MOHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

MR. NIRMAL CHOPRA

03 Dec 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 17 Nov 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/4179/2009
(Against the Order dated 19/01/2009 in Appeal No. 1337/2008 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. BRIJ MOHANVillage Barwasni, Tehsil & Distt.Sonepat ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. LIC OF INDIASec. 15 Sonepat ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. NIRMAL CHOPRA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 03 Dec 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

          There is a delay of 145 days in filing the Revision Petition, which is over and above the period of 90 days statutorily given to file the Revision Petition. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer fora are required to decide the case within a period of 90 days from the date of filing, in case, no evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days, wherever evidence is required to be taken. Delay of 145 days cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown. The only reason given for condonation of delay is that the policy handed over to the petitioner was not legible and it took time to obtain the policy and getting it typed. We are not satisfied with the cause shown. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.   Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.
          Even otherwise, in the present case, complainant died on 20.10.2003. Policy lapsed on 7.5.2003 and the premium was paid on 24.10.2003, i.e., 4 days after the death of the insured. As the policy had already lapsed, the respondent insurance company was not obliged to pay the insured amount. 
          Dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.


......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER