Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/651

ASHUTOSH PATHAK - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC - Opp.Party(s)

SH.R.TIWARI

13 Apr 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 651 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 15.03.2019 passed in C.C.No.48/2018 by District Commission, Damoh)

 

ASHUTOSH PATHAK & ANR.                                                                              …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

LIC & ANOTHER.                                                                                                 …         RESPONDENTS.                                      

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR     :     PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY                                 :     MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                          :      MEMBER  

                                    

 

                                      O R D E R

13.04.2023.

 

          Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants.

            Shri Dharmendra Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

            None for the respondent no.2.

                       

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Damoh (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.48/2018, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.

2.                Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the alleged letter by which the appellants were informed that they were not entitled for surrender value was issued by the respondent no.1 on 13.05.2016 but was not received by them on 13.05.2016 as observed by the District Commission. He submits that drawing of inference by the District Commission that the same was received by the appellants on 13.05.2016 and the period of limitation for filing complaint was started from that date is erroneous. He also submits that in the reply filed by the

-2-

respondent no date of receiving if the said letter by the appellants has been mentioned and as such the District Commission ought not to have dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation treating the said date for receiving the letter.

3.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the impugned order. He submits that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation. The letter dated 13.05.2016 must have been received by the appellants at least within 2-3 days.

4.                Be that as it may. We find that neither parties pleaded and proved by evidence as on which date the said letter was received by the appellants.

5.                In the circumstances, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the case to the District Commission to decide the question of limitation afresh. After deciding the question of limitation, if it is found that the complaint is within limitation, the District Commission shall proceed further in accordance with law.

6.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 10.05.2023.

7.                With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.   

                                               

(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)(Dr.Srikant Pandey)(Dr. Monika Malik)   

           President                              Member                   Member