ORDER
                                    Dated:  28-09-2016



Mohd. Anwar Alam, President



1.     The complainant filed this complaint on 07/10/2015 along with
the application U/s 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act  and alleged
that his father Sh. Gurucharan Singh  deposited a sum of Rs. 4500/- on
21.06.2009 with  OP2 thereafter OP2 purchased Nagrik Suraksha Policy
from OP1 for the benefit of Gurucharan Singh and his family members.
As per policy, complainants were entitled for Rs. 5,50,000/- for the
death of Gurucharan Singh in accident.  On 10.10.2011, Gurucharan
Singh and his son Jasbeer Singh and two son-in-laws were injured in a
accident while returning to their home and severe injuries were caused
for which they were hospitalized in Civil Hospital ,Moga . Gurucharan
Singh died at Civil Hospital, Moga. Its claim was send to OP1 on
21.10.2010 and 10.12.2010. OP demanded certain documents which were
sent to them.  Despite several reminders and notice dated 28.3.2011 ,
OP did not reply. Hence, the claim before the District Consumer
Dispute Redressal Forum Sangrur was filed which was decided on
05.6.2012 which was challenged in the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab
and later on Revision Petition filed before Hon’ble  National Consumer
Disputes Redressal commission wherein vide order dated 07.09.2015
directed  to file fresh complaint before this forum. Hence, it is
prayed that OPs be directed to pay the claim of complainant.

2.     In reply, OP1 and OP2 admitted that Nagrik Surakasha Policy was
purchased and as per policy sum assured was Rs 3,00,000/- and denied
rest of the allegations made in the complaint. OP objected that this
complaint was not filed within time as per the order dated 7.9.2015 of
the National Commission hence not maintainable.

3.     Complainant filed rejoinder and supported the complaint.

4.     Complainant was given opportunity on 24.5.2016 26.7.2016 and
9.9.2016  but he failed to produce  his evidence, further
complainants were not present on these dates ,therefore, heard
counsels of OPs and perused file and considered the complaint on the
ground of maintainability.

5.     Hon’ble National Commision vide its order dated 07.09.2015 in
Revision Petition No. 2014 of 2014  has given liberty to the
petitioner to file a fresh complaint before an appropriate forum. If
the petitioner chooses to file a fresh complaint with an  application
for condonation of delay within 30 days from today the same shall be
considered  in view of observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Laxmi Engineering Works  V/s P.S.G. Industrial Institute , AIR 1995 SC
1428.

6.     As the petitioners have failed to file fresh complaint before
this forum within 30 days from the date of order i.e. 07.09.2015
passed by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition no. 2014 of
2014. In these circumstances liberty given to the petitioner by the
Hon’ble National Commission to file a fresh complaint before an
appropriate forum is missed by complainant. In this case cause of
action arose on 28-03-2011 when  legal notice given to the OP was not
replied.  There is no satisfactory reason given by the complainant to
explain  that they  have sufficient  cause for not filing  the
complaint within the period of limitation.   Hence the application
filed by the complainant U/s 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act along
with his complaint is rejected. Consequently looking to the above
mentioned facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the
complainant is dismissed. Copy of this order be made available to the
parties as per law. File be consigned to record room.



 Announced on this…………