Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 430.
Instituted on : 29.10.2013.
Decided on : 03.06.2016.
Chand Kaur wife of Shri Daya Singh resident of House No.212/12, New No.572/6, Para Mohalla, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Life Insurance Corporation of India Opposite Akashwani Bhawan, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
- Life Insurance Corporation of India, Division Office, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mukesh Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Puneet Chahal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the husband of complainant named Daya Singh had obtained a policy bearing no.67767 under Master policy Scheme. It is averred that husband of the complainant had expired on 11.07.1994 leaving behind his widow i.e. complainant and Sunita daughter, Dharmender son, Babita Daughter. The complainant is also nominee in the record of opposite party’s company. It is averred that after the death of her husband, complainant visited the office of opposite parties many times and requested to give the detail of above said policy regarding the clearance of amount and other benefits as the real policy holder had expired. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite parties to pay the insured amount under the policy but to no effect. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 19.07.2013 but the same was not replied. It is averred that the act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and against the principal of natural justice and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of policy alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the answering opposite parties have not issued any such policy to the complainant or her husband. There is no record available with the opposite parties regarding the complainant. It is averred that as no policy has been issued by the opposite parties, hence the complainant is not entitled to any amount. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
6. In the present case complainant has filed the claim of a policy bearing no.67767 with the opposite parties allegedly issued in the name of husband of complainant who had died on 11.07.1994 and has placed on record copy of death certificate Ex.C1, Advance receipt Ex.C2 which is blank and without the signatures of any person and a legal notice Ex.C3. On the other hand opposite parties have placed on record copy of affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Gurveen Kaur Manager(Legal) and has submitted that no such policy was issued by the opposite parties and as such the complainant is not entitled for any claim.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that from the documents placed on record by the complainant, it is not proved that the policy no.67767 was issued by the opposite parties in the name of husband of complainant. No premium receipt or policy etc. have been placed on record by the complainant. Moreover the husband of complainant namely Daya Singh had died in the year 1994 and she has filed the complaint in the year 2013 i.e. after 19 years. Therefore, in view of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which says that District Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within 2 years from the date of which cause of action has arisen, the present complaint is time barred. Accordingly the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
03.06.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
