Haryana

Karnal

CC/124/2022

Reena - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.B.I Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Sikri

28 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 124 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.10.03.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:28.03.2022

 

Reena wd/o Shri Joginder Singh, resident of house no.1597, near Ravi Dass Mandir, Jundla, Karnal, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     SBI, Life insurance co. Ltd., SCO 144 2^nd floor near OPs Vidya Mandir School, Urban Estate, Sector 13, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

2.     SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 7^th level, seawoods Grand Central, Tower-2, plot no.R-1, sector 40, Seawoods, Nerul Node, District Navi-Mumbai-400706.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Vikram Singh proxy, cl. for complainant.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs) on the averments that the husband of the complainant was insured with the OPs, vide policy no.35846348102 UIN111N055V03 under the Shubh Nivesh-RR Plan Death Benefits dated 16.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards death benefit. The husband of complainant had expired natural/normal death on 07.05.2017. After the death of her husband, complainant approached the OPs for the reimbursement of the death claim and completed all the formalities. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs so many times to settle the claim but OPs failed to settle the claim and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant served a legal notice dated 23.08.2021 upon OPs in this regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             Today the case was fixed for arguments on the point of admissibility of the complaint. Learned proxy counsel for complainant has requested for adjournment on the ground that original counsel is practicing at District Bar Kaithal and he is unable to appear before this Commission. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 10.03.2022 and the same was fixed for today i.e.28.03.2022 for consideration, on the point of admissibility. As per Section 36(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, admissibility of the complaint required to be decided within twenty one days of filing of the complaint. The Section 36 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reproduced as under:-

(2)   On receipt of a complaint made under section 35, the District Commission may, by order, admit the complaint for being proceeded with or reject the same:

 Provided that a complaint shall not be rejected under this section unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the complainant:

Provided further that the admissibility of the complaint shall ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on which the complaint was filed.

      

       The prescribed period for admissibility of the complaint is about to expire. Further adjournment not justified.

4.           Further, on perusal of the complaint, it reveals that, as per version of the complainant her husband was expired on 07.05.2017 and complainant filed the present complaint on 10.03.2022 after the gap of approximately five years.

5.             Now the question for consideration before us is that whether the present complaint is well within period of limitation or not?

6.             Limitation for filing a complaint has been described under Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced as under:-

1. The District Commission, the State Commission or the 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 (1) a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, 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 District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

7.             As per aforesaid Section of Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing a complaint is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the present complaint, husband of complainant was expired on 07.052017. During the period from the year 2017 to 2022 there was no correspondence between the parties. Complainant had sent legal notice to OPs in the year 2021. It seems that complainant sent legal notice to the OPs in the year 2021 just to create the fresh period of limitation to file the present complaint. By only sending a legal notice, does not extend the limitation period. Moreover, there is no separate application, on the file to condone the delay or has not made prayer for condonation in  the complaint and no sufficient cause has been shown by the complainant for not filing the complaint within limitation period. Hence, as per the provision of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the present complaint is hopelessly time barred and the same is liable to be dismissed

8.             Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation on the point of admissibility. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 28.03.2022

                                                                 President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                        Member