Per Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President:- 

This is a complaint filed by one Mr.Rahul as against the opponent claiming that the opponents be directed to pay an amount of `25 Lakhs jointly and severally by them to complainant.  One Mr.Suryakant Ramchandra Modi has taken an insurance policy on his life dated 08/02/2006.  It is reported that he was a bachelor residing with the complainant/Rahul.  Suryakant expired on 11/02/2008 and therefore, the insurance claim was made.  It is also an admitted fact that on 26/07/2008 the insurance company repudiated the claim.  Thereafter, it appears that advocates’ notice was given and then the complaint has been filed on 12/08/2010.  We wanted to know two facts from the complainant.  The first fact is that deceased was a bachelor and he had no heirs therefore, whether the complainant is being covered under the said policy.  We are told that complainant is a nominee.  Whether he is a beneficiary as a nominee? It is well settled that nominee is expected to recover the money and distribute the monies amongst the heirs.  But nominee is never a owner of said money.  Therefore, under the present circumstances unless there are legal heirs who are covered under the policy, the nominee is not supposed to claim the money for his own benefit.  The insurance policy is not placed on record.  The answer given to this query by the Ld.Counsel is that policy is submitted to the company and therefore, the complainant is unable to produce it.  Let the fact be as it is.  There is another hurdle for the complainant.  Admittedly, the complaint has been filed on 12/08/2010.  Suryakant has died on 11/02/2008 therefore; the cause of action to claim the amount on the basis of the insurance policy has arisen for the first time on 11/02/2008 i.e. date on which the insured expired.  It is now well settled law that cause of action is bundle of facts which gives right for the complainant to claim the relief claimed in the complaint.  Therefore, existence of the policy and the death of a person, these are the facts which gives rise to claim a relief under the insurance policy.  Therefore, the complaint should have been filed within period of two years from 11/02/2008 that is on or before 10/02/2009.  Admittedly, it is not so filed.  The total delay on the date of filing on 12/08/2010 is of 183 days.  It is also well settled rule of limitation that when it starts running, it continuously goes on and it never halts.  Ld.Counsel tried to submit before us that in the present matter the claim was repudiated on 26/07/2008 and therefore, from the date of refusal, the cause of action should be calculated and thus, she tried to persuade us that  from the date of notice which was issued to them, the cause of action should be calculated.  We are not in agreement with the Ld.Counsel for the complainant.  Repudiation of claim is not a cause of action in the insurance matter and for this purpose we make reference to Apex Court judgment reported in Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V/s. National Insurance Co.Ltd. and another , 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP).

Therefore, repudiation of the claim and the subsequent correspondence will not extend the period of limitation as contemplated under the law.  Assuming for sake of argument that on first repudiation, probably the cause of action has arisen, as claimed by the complainant, yet from that date also the complaint is time barred because it should have been filed on or before 25/07/2010.  So, even from the date of death of a person, namely, the insured and from the date of the first repudiation by the insurance company the complaint is time barred.  The right position according to law is that the complaint is barred by limitation.  The submission that period of limitation shall be calculated from the date of repudiation stands rejected in view of Apex Court judgment. 

        Along with complaint there is no delay condonation application and/or a prayer in the complaint coupled with explanation of delay is also not made.  That means either the complainant could have made composite complaint along with delay application or separate delay condonation application could have been filed.  None of the course is followed by the complainant for the best reasons known to them.  Hence, we do not find any merit in complaint so as to admit it.  It is therefore rejected.

        We find that the complaint is absolutely barred by limitation.  It is hereby rejected.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                                :-ORDER-:

1.           Complaint stands rejected.

2.           No order as to costs.

3.           Dictated on dais.

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