View 7580 Cases Against Life Insurance Corporation
View 32914 Cases Against Life Insurance
Bimla Devi filed a consumer case on 29 May 2024 against Life Insurance Corporation Of India in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is CC/260/2024 and the judgment uploaded on 31 May 2024.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.
Complaint No. 260 of 2024
Date of instt.24.05.2024
Date of Decision 29.05.2024
Bimla Devi alias Bimla aged about 70 years (Senior Citizen) wife of Shri Chander alias Chander Singh, resident of Village Nagla Baburi, Bhagwati Colony, Gate No.9, Refinery Post Barari, Tehsil and District Mathura. Now resident of Village Newal, District Karnal.
…….Complainant.
Versus
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office # 264, 2nd Floor, MG Road, Agra District Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 through its Branch Manager.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office: CBO-6, First Floor, Jeewan Prakash Building, Sanjay Palace, MG Road, Agra District Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 through its Divisional Office.
…..Opposite Parties.
Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Before Sh. Jaswant Singh…….…President
Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member
Dr. Suman Singh…………..Member
Present: Shri Ashwani K.Popli, counsel for the complainant.
(Jaswant Singh President)
ORDER:
Today the complaint is fixed for consideration on the point of maintainability.
2. The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that previously the complainants had filed a complaint before this Commission and the same was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 25.05.2022 with a liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action. Thereafter, the complainant again filed a complaint bearing No.611 of 2023 before this Commission and the same was withdrawn due to technical ground with the permission to file fresh complaint. Now, the complainant has filed again fresh complaint with the averments that the complainants had purchased a tractor Mahindera Arjun 605 Di Model 2011 bearing registration No.HR06W-5493 and got insured the same with the OP No.1. On 05.08.2014, the said tractor was stolen by unknown person. An FIR was got registered bearing No.570 dated 06.08.2014, Police Station Sadar, Karnal, U/s 379 of IPC. Intimation in this regard was also given to the OPs and also submitted requisite documents but the OP vide letter dated 03.10.2016 has been intimated to the complainant that the claim was intimated to the company belatedly i.e. 19.09.2014. Due to the negligence in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant is being harassed mentally, physically and economically as despite of the complaints moved by the complainant no any heed is being paid by the OPs towards the genuine problem of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.
3. Arguments on the point of admissibility heard.
4. Allegedly, the theft in question has taken place on 05.08.2014 and the intimation of denial of claim has been given to the complainant vide letter dated 03.10.2016. Firstly, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Consumer Commission, Panipat on 02.05.2017 i.e. after the gap of near about seven months but the said complaint was disposed of on the ground of territorial jurisdiction vide order dated 04.09.2019. In the said order, District Consumer Commission, Panipat has granted liberty to the complainants to approach before the competent court/authority/forum having jurisdiction in the matter for redressal of their grievances. Thereafter, the complainant has filed a complaint before this Commission on 11.10.2019, which was also dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 25.05.2022, as the complainant neither got effected the service of notice upon OP No.2 nor appeared before this Commission. Thereafter, the complainant again filed a complaint on 25.10.2023 and the same was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.10.2023.
5. Now the question for consideration before us is that whether the present complaint is well within period of limitation or not?
6. Limitation for filing a complaint has been described under Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is reproduced as under:-
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
7. As per aforesaid Section of Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing a complaint is of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Firstly, the cause of action in the present complaint has been arisen on 05.08.2014 when the vehicle in question has allegedly stolen by some unknown person and lastly when the claim of the complainant has been denied by the OP vide letter dated 03.10.2016.
8. First time, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before District Consumer Forum, Panipat (Now District Commission), on 02.05.2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 04.09.2019. Thereafter, the complainant has filed a complaint before this Commission on 11.10.2019 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 25.05.2022 and again the complainant has filed a complaint before this Commission on 25.10.2023 which was withdrawn on technical ground vide order dated 26.10.2023. Now, the complainant has filed the present complaint on 31.10.2023. After the date of cause of action i.e. 04.10.2016 to 31.10.2023, the complainant has spent more than seven years but as per Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the limitation for filing the consumer complaint is two years from the date of cause of action. Moreso, the complainant neither sought the permission for exemption of limitation while withdrawing/dispose of their complaints. Moreover, there is no separate application, on the file to condone the delay or has not made prayer for condonation in the prayer para of the complaint and no sufficient cause has been shown by the complainant for not filing the complaint within limitation period prescribed in Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant has also failed to explain the reason as to why he could not procure the service of OP No.2 and as to why he did not appear, in the previous complaint filed before this Commission, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. From the said conduct of the complainant, it is also revealed that the complainants are filing the complaints time and again only in order to waste the precious time of the Commission. Hence, as per the provision of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the present complaint is hopelessly time barred and the same is liable to be dismissed
9. Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced
Dated: 15.11.2023
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Karnal.
(Vineet Kaushik) (Dr. Suman Singh)
Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.