Haryana

StateCommission

A/740/2015

CHAMELI DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORP.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP GOYAT

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    740 of 2015

Date of Institution:    08.09.2015

Date of Decision :    16.08.2016

 

Smt. Chameli Devi wife of Shri Bale Singh s/o Sh. Ram Chander, Resident of 825A, Urban Estate-II, Hisar.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      The Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited Command Office, Sahara India Bhawan, Kapurthala Complex, Lucknow, through its Managing Director/PO.

2.      The Manager, Branch Office, Sahara India, Bhiwani.

3.      National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 4, Jeevan Bhawan, Phase-I, 43, Hazaraganj, Lucknow through Branch Office Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

Present:              Shri Sandeep Goyat, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri D.K. Singal, Advocate for respondents No.1&2.

                             None for respondent No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Bale Singh (since deceased)-husband of complainant Chameli Devi, deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited (for short ‘Sahara India’)-Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, under the scheme known as ‘Sahara Swarn Yojna’.  Being depositor, the complainant was to get insurance cover upto Rs.4.00 lacs. He (Bale Singh) met with an accident on May 10^th, 2005 and suffered multiple grievous injuries and went in coma. He remained admitted in various hospitals viz. Ravindra Hospital, Sarvodya Multispecialty Hospital, N.C. Jindal Institute of Medical Care & Research at Hisar and Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi and ultimately died on January 6^th, 2007. The complainant filed claim with the Opposite Parties but they did not pay the insured amount. Chameli Devi-complainant/appellant, filed Consumer Complaint bearing No.234 of 2008, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                The Opposite Parties contested complaint.  The District Forum, Hisar vide order dated March 11^th, 2011 dismissed the complaint. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“….Hence, in view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed without any costs. However, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute 1995(3) SCC page 583, the complainant may seek exemption/condition of condonation of the time spent before the Consumer Fora to seek remedy before the Civil Court, if so advised.”

3.                Thereafter, the complainant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum, Bhiwani alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay.

4.                Sahara India-Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their written version besides raising other objections, took plea regarding non-maintainability of the complaint. It was stated that Bale Singh died on January 6^th, 2007 and the complaint was filed in February, 2012; therefore, the complaint deserved dismissal in view of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act.  The Opposite Party No.3-Insurance Company in its separate reply stated that the complainant had not given any intimation regarding death of the insured as per terms and conditions of the policy.

5.                The District Forum, Bhiwani, vide order dated July 30^th, 2015 without deciding the complaint on merits dismissed it observing that the complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay.

6.                A perusal of the record of the District Forum shows that the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the complaint, is tagged at page No.339. Besides, in para 13 of the complaint it has been clearly mentioned that a separate application for condonation of delay was being filed. For ready reference, para 13 of the complaint is reproduced as under:-

“13.   That a separate application seeking exemption/condonation of delay in filing the present complaint is being filed.”

7.                It is very strange that the District Forum without going through the case file committed grave error in dismissing the complaint holding it barred by limitation as envisaged under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, inspite of the fact that the application has been filed by the complainant.  Hence, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. 

8.                The case is remitted to the District Forum, Bhiwani, with the direction to decide the complaint afresh expeditiously.

9.                 The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on September 15^th, 2016.

10.              Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

Announced 16.08.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL