Per Justice Shri S.B.Mhase, Honb’le President:

This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai  Suburban  in consumer complaint no.266/2008 on 25/06/2010.  The complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.  The complainant has taken the policy from the opponents titled as “Social Welfare Scheme–Anticipated Endowment Certificate- Table-5 Series”.  It is also a policy for an amount of Rs.20,000/- and yearly installment of a subscription was Rs.810/-.  The last date of maturity of the said policy was 15/04/2005 and guaranteed bonus under the said policy was Rs.7,200/-.  Since it was an endowment policy, it provides that after period of 7 years from the commencement of the policy 20% of total endowment was to be paid to the complainant.  The another 20% was to be paid on completion of 14 years and on maturity the remaining amount of 60% was to be paid.  The date of the commencement of this policy was 15/04/1985.  Therefore, the first installment as per the said policy was payable on or before 15/04/1992 and the another 20% was payable on or before 15/04/1997 and the total amount namely, remaining 60% were payable on 15/04/2005.  The grievance of the complainant is that none of these amounts were paid and in 2007 he came to know that the opponent/respondent have manipulated their record and therefore, he gave notice and filed consumer complaint. 

        The above facts are not in dispute so far as the complainant is concerned.  In fact, for the first time on 15/04/1992 the first installment was payable and was not paid to the complainant, the complainant ought to have made grievance.  But for the best reasons known to him, he had not made any grievance.  The second opportunity the complainant was having to make grievance was on 15/04/1997.  Therefore, we may take into consideration that complainant was not in need of money even though two installments were not paid to him; he had not approached to opp.party and made any grievance.  At least  on the last installment i.e. on  maturity of the endowment policy  i.e. on 15/04/2005 he should have made grievance about non-receipt of money and should have taken appropriate steps to recover the amount.  The date of maturity is evident from the policy documents which is issued in favour of the complainant and it is equally to be taken into consideration that after period of maturity no benefits under the said policy were payable to the complainant, namely, interest and bonus were not available and therefore, in any circumstances, a wiser complainant and investor would have claimed the amount of maturity, since it was a policy for installment of money.  Therefore, cause of action for recovery of amount of the said policy has taken place on 15/04/2005 and more specifically, when the amount was not paid on the same date.  However, it appears that in 2007 for the first time notice was issued and thereafter, on 16/05/2008 the complaint has been filed. 

Taking cognizance of these facts, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has come to the conclusion that the complaint is hopelessly time barred. We are agree with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.  Along with the consumer complaint, application for condonation of delay could have been filed.  Said application was also not filed by the complainant and therefore, finding recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum that the complaint is hopelessly time barred has been rightly recorded which requires no interference.

        Apart from this there is one more aspect, namely, this was a transaction for the investment of money and not for availing any service from the opponent.  The bonus and interest was payable in respect of these amounts and therefore, it was not a service hired or availed from the opponents but it was a simplictor investment for earning more money which is in the nature of commercial transaction.  On this ground also the complaint itself is not maintainable.  Thus, viewed from any angle, we find that order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is justifiable.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                                        :-ORDER-: 

1.           Appeal stands rejected.

2.           No order as to costs.

3.           Dictated on dais.

4.           Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.