Punjab

StateCommission

FA/1025/2013

Davinder Shah Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another - Opp.Party(s)

Karan Singla

04 Sep 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1025 of 2013

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 25.09.2013            

                                                         Date of Decision:  04.09.2015

 

Davinder Shah Singh S/o Sh.Jai Dayal Shah Singh, R/o 1066/7, Tripuri Town, Near Gurudwara Kashmirian, Patiala.

                                                                                                                                                                            …..Appellant/Complainant                                       

                                      Versus

 

1.       Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch    Manager, Ist Floor, SCO No.31-32, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala.

 

2.       Mr. Puneet Jain, Advisor, Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd., Customer Service Center, Ist Floor, SCO No.31-32, New Leela            Bhahan Patiala.

 

                                                                                                                                         ……..Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

First Appeal against order dated 19.08.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

Present:-

          For the appellant                      : Sh.Karan Singla, Advocate

          For the respondents                : Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 19.08.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Patiala, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant now appellant in this appeal.

2.      The complainant Davinder Shah Singh has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that on the assurance of OP No.2 for providing guaranteed and  non-guaranteed benefits  of the policy, the complainant paid Rs.1,49,800/- for two policies ( Rs.99,900/- for one policy and Rs.49,900/- for second policy) being single premium of both policies. The amount of Rs.1,49,800/- for two policies being single premium was given to OP No.2, as per directions of OP No.2. OP no.2 also obtained the signatures of the complainant on various blank papers and assured the complainant that blank papers would not be miss-utilized and misused and would be used for issuance of the policies only. OP No.2 further stated to complainant that date of commencement of policies would be 31.03.2007 and OP No.2 would hand over the receipt of both the policies by 01.04.2007 along with other documents. OP No.2 came to complainant's residence on 01.04.2007 and handed over two receipts pertaining to premiums paid by him. On 17.09.2010, the complainant sought information regarding the status of the policy from the OPs. The OPs failed to provide any such information to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant moved a complaint to the Insurance Regulatory Authority of India (IRDA) in this regard.  The complainant received memo dated 13.10.2010 from the Reliance General Insurance Company, asking him to furnish details of the policies to dispose of the complaint. The complainant again sought information from OP No.1 on 27.09.2011 with regard to the status of his policy no. 10620973/10614808. On 02.01.2013, the complainant received memo dated 04.11.2010, copy of the banker cheque dated 23.03.2007, his application dated 27.09.2011 bearing handwritten status report with regard to his policies, two copies of premium collection receipts and copy of application with regard to policy bearing Form no.20043917. The complainant came to know on perusal of memo dated 04.11.2010 that policy no.10620973 was withdrawn, on the ground that banker cheque bearing no.002719 was dishonoured, as issued by the complainant. The complainant alleged in the complaint that this cheque was never dishonoured and amount of cheque was used by OPs for premium of the policy bearing no.10614808, vide application form no.20043917, and premium collection receipts. The complainant suffered huge loss on the part of OP No.1 in withdrawing policy no.10620973. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint directing the OPs to pay the value of the policy no.10614808 and amount of premium of policy no.10620973, along with interest @ 18% with effect from 20.03.2007 till the date of payment. The complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs. 2 lac for mental harassment and Rs.20,000/- for costs of litigation.

3.      OP No.1 filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in preliminary objections by OP No.1 that complaint is false and frivolous. The complaint is alleged to be hopelessly barred by time because the policy was admittedly purchased by the complainant on 20.03.2007 with date of commencement, as 31.03.2007. The last letter regarding the policy was issued on 04.11.2010 and the present complaint has been filed after more than two years therefrom and hence it is, thus, barred by time. The complex questions of facts and law are alleged to have been involved in this case, which require relegating the parties to the civil court, as detailed evidence would be required in this case to settle the controversy. OP No.1 further pleaded that it had issued the policy with terms and conditions and welcome letter. The detail of the same is reproduced as under:-

Policy Name	Reliance Money Guarantee Plan
Policy Number	10614808
Policy issue date	31.03.2007
Proposer	Devinder Singh Shah
Name of life assured	Ms.Parvinder Kaur
Sum assured	Rs.4,99,500/-
Premium amount	Rs.99,500/-
Mode	Annual/Yearly Mode
Policy Term	10 years
Premium Team	10 years

 

On merits, OP No.1 pleaded that complainant submitted proposal form no.20043917 dated 31.03.2007 and annual premium under the policy was Rs.99,500/- and premium paying term under the policy was 10 years. OP No.1 issued two receipts bearing no.PC0000083719 for Rs.50,000/- and receipt no.PC0000083747 for Rs.49,900/- . OP No. 1 issued policy no.10614808 to the complainant with date of commencement as 31.03.2007. It was vehemently denied that another policy no.10620973 with date of commencement as 31.03.2007 on the same application no.20043917 on which the policy bearing no.10614808 was issued. It was further pleaded that amount of Rs.49,900/- was shown in the wrong policy. OP No.1, vide letter dated 04.11.2010, clarified the complainant that policy has been withdrawn and reason given was that amount of Rs.49,900/- paid by cheque bearing no.002719  dated 23.03.2007 was dishonoured. It was further pleaded by OP No.1 that wrong policy was issued against said cheque no.002719 on the same proposal form no.20043917 dated 31.03.2007 to the complainant. Any signatures of the complainant on blank documents were totally denied by OP no.1. It was further pleaded that complainant is aware of the facts that he made payment of Rs. 99,500/- under policy no.10614808 and did not make any payment for policy no. 10620973. OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      OP No.2 was set ex-parte by the District Forum, vide order dated 05.04.2013.

5.      The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13. As against it OP no.1 tendered in evidence, the affidavit of Rahul Mehta authorized signatory of Reliance Life Insurance Company/OP Ex.OP-A along with copies of the documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Patiala dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 19.08.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Patiala, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

6.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.

7.      District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant on the ground that complaint is barred by time. The findings of the District Forum have been assailed in this appeal by the complainant now appellant in this appeal. We have to examine the evidence on the record to adjudicate this controversy in this case. Ex.C-A is affidavit of complainant. Ex.C-1 is receipt of the premium of Rs.49,900/-. Ex.C-2 is receipt for 49,900/-, vide receipt no.25002307, Ex.C-3 is receipt of Rs.99,500/-, Ex.C-4 is receipt for Rs.99,500/-, vide receipt no.25002260, Letter issued by the complainant to OP for asking the status of his policies is Ex.C-5, which is dated 17.09.2010. Another letter Ex.C-6 is dated 17.09.2010. Ex.C-7 is registered letter sent to the complainant by OPs intimating him to provide correct details of the documents. Ex.C-8 is letter addressed by the complainant to Branch Manager for knowing the status of his policies. Ex.C-9 is letter dated 4.11.2010 by OP no.1 to complainant intimating him that policy was withdrawn, as amount of Rs. 49,900/- paid by cheque no.2719 drawn on State Bank of Patiala was dishonoured. It was further intimated to complainant to provide the bank statement or payment advice from his bank for credit of funds to prove that amount was debited from his account, this letter Ex.C-9 is dated 4.11.2010. Ex.C-10 is the cheque no.002719 for Rs.49,900/-  in favour of OP No.1 issued by the complainant. Ex.C-11 is receipt fo premium of Rs.50,000/- and Ex.C-12 is receipt of premium of Rs.49,900/-. Ex.C-13 terms and conditions of the policy documents are on the record. These are documents of the complainant on the record.

8.      The OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rahul Mehta Authorized Signatory Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited Ex.OP-A. Ex.OP-1 is Reliance Money Guarantee Plan. Ex.OP-2 is policy document on the record.

9.      From appraisal of above-referred evidence on the record and hearing respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we are of this view that complainant could not establish it on the record that the complaint has been filed within period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action to file the complaint. As per pleaded case of the complainant and, as per his affidavit on the record, the date of commencement of the policy is 31.03.2007 and complainant received documents on 01.04.2007.  It is not a disputed fact by the complainant that he has not received the policy documents with terms and conditions therewith. The complainant alleged accrual of cause of action on the basis of the memo dated 13.10.2010 received from OP No.1 and again on 02.01.2013.  We find that it is not a disputed fact in this case on the part of the complainant that policy documents were not received by the complainant. The complainant has not exercised the option of "free look period" to opt out of the policy within stipulated period therefor.  The customer care of the OP No.1 wrote letter to the complainant on 04.11.2010 that his cheque was dishonoured and hence the policy stood withdrawn for non-payment of premium. This letter Ex.C-9 dated 04.11.2010, must be in the knowledge of the complainant and complainant himself produced this document on the record and cannot deny it. We are of this confirmed view that the complainant certainly got knowledge of receipt of letter Ex.C-9 sent to him by the OPs in this case. Once, this fact was brought to the notice of the complainant that his policy stood withdrawn due to dishonouring of cheque, therefore, complainant cannot deny this fact the cause of action, in fact, accrued on 02.01.2013 to file this complaint. Limitation once commences to run cannot be suspended. We, thus, hold that the cause of action to the file complaint, at the most, commenced from 13.10.2010. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant on 05.03.2013, after more than two years period. Even if, we do not take the cause of action from the date of commencement of the policy on 31.03.2007 for the sake of arguments, even then by taking commencement of cause of action from 13.10.2010, when OPs brought this fact to the notice of the complainant that his policy stood withdrawn due to dishonouring of the cheque, hence cause of action to file the complaint started after 13.10.2010. The complainant filed complaint on 05.03.2013 after more than two years period. Section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down as under:-

24-A Limitation Period:-

          "1) The District Forum, the State Commission or National   Commission shall not admit a complaint unless, it is filed within           two years from the date on which the cause of action has   arisen.

          2)    Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (i), a   complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub- section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the  State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint  within such period.

          Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless   the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be records its reasons for condoning such delay."

          It is, thus, evident that no Consumer Forum shall admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date, when the cause of action has arisen. The delay can be condoned provided sufficient cause is shown and separate application has been filed in this regard by the complainant. There is no such prayer of the complainant to condone the delay in this case on the basis of sufficient ground. Consequently, we endorse the findings of the District Forum that complaint of the complainant is barred by time. The complainant has also not exercised the option of "Free Look Period" within 15 days period, as described in the terms and conditions of the policy. Once the complaint of the complainant is found to be barred by time, hence, we find no illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum, calling for any interference therein in this appeal.

10.    As a result of our above discussion, we affirm the order of the District Forum Patiala dated 19.08.2013, under challenge in this case in dismissing the complaint of the complainant and resultantly the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is ordered to be dismissed.

11.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 27.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

12.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                             (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

September 4,  2015.                                                                

(ravi)