Delhi

New Delhi

CC/245/2016

Shri Ram Prakash Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S L.I.C Of India & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jul 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./245/2016                                  Dated:

In the matter of:

SHRI RAM PRAKASH SINGH,

S/o  Late Shri Mano Ram,

R/o T-699/1D, Gali No.21,

Baljeet Nagar, Delhi

(Father of Insured Deceased Son)

 

……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

1.     M/S L.I.C. OF INDIA,

        Delhi D.O. I,

        “JEEVAN PRAKASH”

        25, K.G. Marg,

        New Delhio-110001

        SERVICE TO BE EFFECTED ITS

        MKT. MANAGER(S)/OFFICE BEARER(S)

 

2.     M/S L.I.C. OF INDIA, (BRANCH ID-124)

        Bapu Bhawan, Sat Nagar,

        Guru Ravidas Marg, Karol Bagh,

        New Delhi-110005

        SERVICE TO BE EFFECTED ITS

        MKT. MANAGER(S)/OFFICE BEARER(S)

 

                       .... OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

PRESIDENT: S.K. SARVARIA

ORDER

 

By this order, we shall decide the question of admission of complaint. The brief facts giving rise to the present complaint are the complainant being the natural Guardian of the insured deceased, minor Sumit Kumar obtained the insurance policy of the sum assured in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/– for term of 25 years, vide policy bond No. 114478330 dated 15/9/2005. Thereafter complainant regularly paid the premium of the said insurance policy without any default. Unfortunately on 15/10/2013 the insured person met with an accident and later he died. Thereafter complainant filed insurance claim of his deceased son/insured before the OP 2 by placing all required documents. OP 2, settled the death claim after their satisfaction and paid partly claim money of Rs. 2,86,000/– by way of cheque to the complainant in the month of December 2013. However, OP 2 assured that remaining claim money would be paid in very short period. So, the complainant did not hand over the original policy certificate/bond to the OP 2 till realisation of the remaining claim money. On 4/11/2015 the complaint again visited the office of the OP 2 and requested to pay the remaining claimed documents, but the officers of OP 2 misbehaved and abused the complainant and pulled him away from the office. Despite several requests and demands the OP did not release the said claim despite legal notice also issued by complainant through his counsel to OP 1 as well as OP 2.  The complaint has prayed that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till realisation and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/– on account of deficiency in service and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation cost should be allowed to the complainant.

 

We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the question of admission of the complaint. As per the death certificate of deceased insured son of the complainant, he died on 15/10/2013. The sum assured in this LIC policy was Rs. 2,00,000/– and the claim was settled by the OP insurance company for a sum of Rs. 2,86,000/– being death claim, which amount, admittedly stood paid to the complainant by cheque by OP insurance company in the month of December 2013. According to the complainant this claim was settled, as part claim of money while complainant should have been paid more by the OP insurance company. Be it as may be, the fact remains that the OP insurance company has settled the claim of the complainant in December 2013. So, the limitation period in our view started running from December 2013 and the mere fact that the complainant has alleged that it was part of the claim and remaining part was to be settled, or a subsequent legal notice was got issued by the complainant would not lead to commencement of fresh limitation period in the absence of any document in support of the complaint that OP insurance company itself gave in writing that the claim settled by it in December 2013 was settled partly and remaining claim was yet to be settled. The limitation period as per section 24 A of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing a complaint is two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The cause of action, in our view, has accrued to the complainant in December 2013 while the present complaint is filed on 19/4/2016, i.e., beyond the prescribed limitation period of two years. Therefore, the complaint being barred by time is dismissed at the stage of admission of the complaint.

 

        A copy of this order it be sent to both parties free of cost by post. This order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ).

  File be consigned to record room.  

   Pronounced in open Forum on 26/07/2016.

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                         (H M VYAS)                                    (NIPUR CHANDNA)

                                           MEMBER                                                   MEMBER