Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/1968

MANMOHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

/ RELIANCE LIC - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                FIRST APPEAL NO. 1968 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 14.08.2014 passed in C.C.No.200/2014 by the District Commission, Gwalior)

 

MANMOHAN ALIAS MOHANKANT SAMADHIA,

S/O LATE PRABHU DAYAL SAMADHIA,

R/O 140, MAYUR NAGAR, BEHIND PETROL PUMP,

THATIPUR, GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                            …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus                

1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,

    RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    REGISTERED OFFICE- H-BLOCK, FIRST FLOOR,

    DHEERU BHAI AMBANI KNOWLEDGE CITY,

    NAVI MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)

 

2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,

    RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    B-6, SECOND FLOOR, ABOVE RELIANCE FRESH,

    KOH-E-FIZA MAIN ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

    RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    101, NARAYANA KRISHNA, FIRST FLOOR,

   44, CITY CENTER, M.S.ROAD,

   GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                                               …         RESPONDENTS.                                     

 

BEFORE:

                   HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                  :   PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY          :   MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA     :   MEMBER           

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                        Shri Deepesh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. 

                Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents.                     

                 

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 25.04.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:          

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for

-2-

short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.200/2014, whereby the District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant as barred by limitation.

2.                Facts of the case in short are that the complainant for the purposes of higher education of his children had obtained a plan from the opposite parties/respondents and had paid a sum of Rs.5lakhs to the opposite parties for obtaining the said policy.  It is alleged that after receipt of the said amount, the opposite parties did not supply the policy bond to him and later he came to know as per contentions made by the opposite parties, the premium amount was not for one time basis and was a regular plan, whereby, the complainant was to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs per year up to 10 years. Thereafter he contacted the opposite parties on many occasions and requested them to provide him the policy bond. Apart, from it the complainant also sent registered letters dated 23.11.2013 and 18.12.2013 to the opposite parties but the opposite parties vide letters dated 03.03.2014 and 22.03.2014 replied on false pretext and incorrect grounds but have not provided the policy bond. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party in its reply before the District Commission raised objection that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by

-3-

limitation in view of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence deserves dismissal. The policy issued to the complainant was a regular policy, under which he did not deposit the yearly premium amount regularly and hence policy became lapsed. The complainant is entitled for the policy surrender value only. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                Heard. Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the complainant issued a letter to the opposite parties firstly, on 23.11.2013 regarding issuance of policy bond and thereafter issued another letter dated 18.12.2013 giving reference of the earlier letter dated 23.11.2013. Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice on 25.01.2014 to the opposite parties.  Despite following the procedure laid down, till date, no policy bond has been issued by the opposite parties in favour of the complainant. The findings arrived by the District Commission is purely based on presumptions and surmises and deserves to be set-aside.  

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents argued that the policy was issued in the year 2009 and the complaint filed in the year 2014 was hopelessly barred by limitation.  The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.

 

-4-

7.                We find that it is an admitted position that on 05.09.2009, the complainant had obtained an insurance policy after depositing Rs. 5 lakh. The allegation of the complainant is that after receipt of the said amount, the opposite parties did not supply the policy bond to him and later he came to know that the premium amount so obtained was not for one time basis but was a regular plan, in which he had to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs per year up to 10 years.  On the other hand, the stand of the opposite parties is that the policy bond had already been issued to the complainant and therefore the complaint filed after five years is barred by limitation.

8.                The District Commission in paragraph 8 of the impugned order holding that as per complainant himself, he had paid Rs.5 lakhs through cheque for the policy in the year 2009, thereafter he could not raise any objection within proper time, if he did not receive the policy document, presumed that the complainant must have received the policy without any documentary evidence on record. On the other hand, the complainant and his counsel pleaded that he did not receive the policy. In such circumstances, we find that the District Commission ought to have conclude on the basis of documentary evidence available on record and not on presumption. 

 

-5-

9.                Be that as it may. We therefore find that the case deserves to be remanded to the District Commission for decision afresh. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the District Commission for decision afresh in accordance with law. However, in the interest of justice we deem it appropriate that for proper adjudication of the matter, all the parties should be given equal opportunity to contest the matter. All the contentions of the parties including limitation and maintainability are kept open.

10.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 31.05.2023.

11.              Parties are at liberty to lead evidence and affidavits in support of their respective claims. All the contentions of the parties including limitation and maintainability are kept open.

12.              The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove shall not come in way of passing the order by the District Commission.

13.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

1. K. Tiwari)       (Dr. Srikant Pandey)    (D. K. Shrivastava)

       Presiding Member           Member                     Member