Haryana

Panchkula

CC/16/2021

BALA DEVI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER(LEGAL & ADMIN),ZONAL OFFICE ,LIC. - Opp.Party(s)

RITU S.SHARMA

03 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	16 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	13.01.2021
Date of Decision	:	03.02.2021

                                                                                           

Bala Devi, aged 40 years, wife of Late Sh. Kaltar Ram, Resident of Village Khetpurali, Tehsil & District Panchkula.

 

                                                                                               ….Complainant

Versus

1. Manager(Legal & Admn.) Zonal Office, LIC, SCO No.71-72, Sector-2, Panchkula.
2. Branch Manager, LIC, Subhash Chowk, Delhi-Chandigarh Highway Naraingarh, District Ambala- 134203
3. Manager(Legal & Admn.), LIC Divisional Office, 489, Model Town, Karnal (Haryana)- 132001.

 

                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35  OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:                   Mr.Satpal, President.

                               Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                               Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:      Complainant in person along with Ms. Ritu S.Sharma, Advocate.

                                

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.                  Today the case is fixed for consideration on its admissibility. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant, namely, Late Sh. Kartar Ram s/o Sh. Mehar Chand had expired in the year 2008 by falling from the roof of neighboring house and that her husband who was a labour had taken a LIC Policy from OP No.2 and paying of Rs.1,600/-per month towards the LIC policy. The LIC policy was taken through one agent, namely, Karan who is also not alive. The complainant was aware during the life time of her husband that a sum of Rs.1600/- per month was being paid by her husband to LIC agent, namely, Karan as premium of LIC policy. It is stated that the policy papers were not traceable for a long time and after many years she found the policy papers and handed over the same to one personnel working in LIC Naraingarh who collected the policy papers from her house at Village Khetpurali. After sometime, when she went back to the LIC Office, she could not find the person to whom she had handed over the papers. It is alleged that she has been running from pillar to post since many years to get information about the policy taken by her husband but the staff/OP No.2 never provided any information to her. The complainant has served a legal notice to OPs on 02.12.2019 but no reply has been received from the OPs. It is further alleged that the complainant is an uneducated lady and she came to know from OP No.2 that the record may be found with OP No.1 or OP No.3. It is further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment and it is prayed that the OPs be directed to pay the policy amount/death claim alongwith compensation of Rs.1,00,000 and Rs.21,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation charges respectively.

                    The complaint was presented before us on 19.01.2021 for consideration on the point of limitation but none was present on behalf of the complainant and the complaint was adjourned to 22.01.2021 for consideration on its admissibility. On 22.01.2021, the case was adjourned to 25.01.2021 at the request of the learned counsel for the complainant. On 25.01.2021, the case was again adjourned to 27.01.2021 at the request of learned counsel for the complainant. On 27.01.2021, an application for condonation of delay accompanied by the death certificate of husband of the complainant dated  05.05.2008 and copy of Lost property report dated 25.01.2021 lodged in Police Station Chandimandir has been filed and the case was adjourned to 03.02.2021 for scrutiny and examination of the said death certificate/Lost Property Report as well as consideration on the application for condonation of delay.

2.       A complaint before it is admitted for adjudication is required to qualify, inter alia, various parameters, which may be enumerated as below;

1. That the complainant falls under the category of a consumer and that there exist a consumer dispute.
2. That the complaint has been instituted within the period of limitation as required under Section 69 (1) of CP Act,2019.
3. That the relief claimed do not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.
4. That this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

3.                  The above parameters are being discussed in the same seriatim  as under:-

a.        With regard to the status of the complainant as consumer, we find no documents such as LIC Policy, premium payment slip/receipt and any acknowledgment receipt etc. appended with the complaint which may establish that the complainant ever availed a LIC Policy from the OPs. The various details pertaining to alleged LIC policy such as the number of LIC policy, date, month and year of LIC Policy, amount assured, premium amount, date of maturity, duration of policy and the type and nomenclature are not available on record. In the absence of aforementioned details pertaining to the alleged LIC Policy, the relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OPs cannot be presumed. It is well settled that the complainant has to stand on his/her own legs. The plea regarding non-availability of the LIC documents with the complainant is not tenable as in Para No.5 of the complaint, it has been alleged that the policy papers were collected from the house of the complainant by some official working in LIC at Naraingarh whereas now Lost Property Report has been lodged on 25.01.2021 with Police Station, Chandimandir. Thus, we find that the complainant has taken self- contradictory plea with regard to the LIC Policy Papers, if any. Therefore, we conclude that the complainant has not been able to establish the relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OPs.

b.       With regard to the filing of the present complaint within the limitation period, admittedly, it has been filed with an inordinate delay of 12 years 2 month and 27 days. The condonation of delay has been prayed on the ground that the complainant is very poor and is an uneducated lady. During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant praying for the condonation of delay of 12 years 2 months and 27 days in filing the complaint reiterated the grounds as taken in the complaint as well as the aforementioned application dated 27.01.2021. Reliance has also been placed upon the Lost Property Report dated 25.01.2021 as well as legal notice dated 02.12.2019.

4.                  We are not satisfied with the justification furnished by the complainant regarding delay in filing the present complaint.  No reasonable reason has been furnished which prevented the complainant to file the complaint within prescribed period. Mere assertions that she has been visiting the office of the LIC time and again is not sufficient to seek the condonation of delay as mere bald assertions  which are  not corroborated and substantiated by any cogent and credible documentary evidence have no evidentiary value. The last plea taken by the complainant that OPs have not responded to the legal notice dated 02.12.2019 is also of no avail to her in view of the well settled legal proposition that the period of limitation is not liable to be extended on the basis of exchange of letters between the parties. In this regard, we may safely rely upon the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal forum Delhi in 1^st appeal No.460 of 2010 titled as “ Delhi Development Authority Versus Pawan Sethi” wherein it has been held as under;

Section 24A-Limitation- Held-It is well established that the exchange of letters between the parties does not extend the period of limitation under the Act.

                     The Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Delhi, while deciding the case supra, has relied upon several case law which may be mentioned as under:-

1.      Ashok Kumar Sainia vs. Delhi Development Authority, FA No. 183/2007 decided on 21.03.2013 by the National Commission.
2.     Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. Vs. K.C. Aggarwal, IV (2013) CPJ 567 (NC)
3. Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Tej Refrigeration Industries Ltd. decided on 16.07.2013.
4. Harbhjan Sharma Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. 1 (2015) CPJ 672 (NC) wherein the National Commission took the similar view. The relevant portion of judgment is reproduced as under;

Mere writing of letters to the respondent authority and waiting for reply for unduly long time would not extend the period of limitation. It is well settled position of law that the requirement of limitation under Section 24A(1) is a mandatory requirement and the Consumer Forum  shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years of date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(V)              State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009(2) CLT Page 541,decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been held as under;

                               “Limitation –Held that provisions of Section 24A is pre-emptor in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action-As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing- if the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality-The aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set-aside.

                     “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24A-Limitation-Cause of Action to the complainant accrued on June 7, 1994 and complaint filed on 05.05.1997-Neither application for condonation of delay nor any sufficient cause shown-The question of condonation of delay in filing the complaint does not arise-complaint barred by time and ought to have been dismissed as such-The appeal allowed-The orders of Foras below liable to be set-aside and complaint dismissed as time-barred”

          Apart from above, the Hon’ble Apex Court decided the case titled as Kandimalla Rahavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC) on similar lines wherein it is held as under;

Limitation-Time Barred-Insurance Claim-Fire in tobacco godown took place on 22/23 March, 1988-Intimation to Bank in whose favour stock hypothecated, given on 23 March itself-Insurance Company informed in November, 1992-Period of limitation expired-Section 24A-Consumer Protection Act bars Consumer For a from admitting complaint after two years from date of cause of action-Complaint before Consumer Forum filed in October 1997, dismissed as time-barred-Civil appeal filed-Contention, denial of insurance company in honouring claim received in Marc-Limitation period will commence from the date-Contention not acceptable-Cause of action not continuous till denial of claim-Filing of claim by Bank in 1988 in no way helped complainant-Insurance Company’s reply to legal notice in March, 1996, declining to issue claim forms, not resulted in extending limitation period. Complaint filed in 1997, without application of condonation of delay manifestly barred by limitation-Dismissal of complaint justified-No interference requires in appeal.

 5.                 In view of the aforementioned factual as well as legal position it may, safely, be concluded that the present complaint has been preferred beyond the prescribed period of limitation and   the same is accordingly dismissed in limini with liberty to the complainant to approach the competent authority/court if he is so advised. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 03.02.2021

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini            Satpal

                    Member                        Member                              President

 

Note:            Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                                   (Satpal)

                                                        President