DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 445 of 25.10.2016
Decided on: 28.2.2018
Surinder Kaur w/o Late sh.Kanwaljit Singh r/o House No.287, Ajit Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., Narain Continental Hotel, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Incharge/Manager.
2. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.,Regd. Office, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400002.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.M.L.Sharma,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Puneet Gupta,Advocate, counsel for Opposite Parties.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
- Smt. Surinder Kaur, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for giving the following directions to them:
- To pay the amount of Rs.10lac alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of claim till payment;
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension, harassment and humiliation caused to her;
- To pay Rs.10000/- as cost of litigation expenses and also
- To grant any other relief which this Forum may deed fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that her husband late Kanwaljit Singh was insured with the OPs vide Master Policy No.83001000909 ( Personal Loan-A-Cat.) with the sum assured of Rs.15lac for life risk. It is stated that Mr.Kanwaljit Singh fell down from two wheeler on 13.8.2009 near railway phatak No.15, by pass road, Patiala and died on the same day.The complainant lodged the claim with the OP who deputed the Investigator. The complainant completed all the formalities as desired by the Investigator as well as the OPs . The OPs paid a sum of Rs.5lac vide cheque No.581829 dated 18.11.2009 against the sum insured of Rs.15lac. After receiving the said amount, she went to the office of OP no.1 and requested for the payment of the balance amount who told that they would take up the matter with higher authorities and after receipt of their approval would pay the balance amount. However, in the month of March the OPs refused to pay the balance amount of Rs.10lac to her. No satisfactory reply was given by the OPs in this regard. The act and conduct of the OPs amounted to deficiency of service which caused mental agony and physical harassment to her. It is stated that the complainant filed an application under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act,2002, before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Patiala for the payment of balance amount of Rs.10lac. However, on 25.5.2016, the Hon’ble Permanent Lok Adalat, Patiala passed the order that, “the conciliation proceedings stand terminated and applicant is free to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of her grievance”. After receiving the copy of the said order, she approached this Forum for redressal of her grievance.
3. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and that the complaint is barred by limitation. On merits, it is stated that Sh.Kanwaljit Singh(deceased) was enrolled as a member of GECW Group Insurance Scheme vide master policy No.83001000909 for LAN No.RNPB00003838. The DLA applied for the grant of the insurance cover vide membership form dated 7.12.2006. The insurance cover under the master policy was of two types i.e. one was credit shield i.e. PPI and other was Accidental Benefits rider. The DLA was insured for a credit shield cover to the extent of outstanding loan as on the date of death subject to a maximum of Rs.20,00,000/- and in the instant case, the DLA was granted an accidental cover of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Maximum Personal Accident cover was Rs.7,50,000/-depending on the age of the customer at the time of enrolment into the scheme. It is stated that initial loan amount taken by the DLA was Rs.25000/-thereafter he took additional loan of Rs.13,909/-. The credit shield cover was meant to grant insurance cover to the extent of outstanding loan/liability of the borrower as on the date of his/her death so that the insurance cover takes care of the loan liability in case of unfortunate death of the borrower. It is stated that though the maximum cover that could be granted was Rs.20lacs but the actual amount of insurance cover that was granted to a borrower shall always be the actual amount of loan that was granted by the GECW within the maximum limit. The credit shield insurance cover was of diminishing nature and the risk cover tapers down as the borrower repaid the outstanding loan by EMIs. In the present case the initial credit shield cover was for Rs.32,211/- and as this is a group insurance policy, the sum assured under the credit shield cover depends on the amount of loan taken by the individual insured members. The insurance cover under the policy was of diminishing nature. The outstanding loan amount was Rs.23790.64 as certified by the Master Policy Holder. The master policy holder GECW had further confirmed vide an e-mail dated 17.11.2009 that the accidental death benefits were of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further stated that the claim was admitted for the sum assured under the PPI cover and accidental death benefits rider, as the DLA died due to an accident. The OPs paid the sum assured under PPI cover i.e. the outstanding of Rs.23,791/- vide cheque No.348337 dated 12.10.2009 and also paid Rs.5,00,000/-towards accidental benefits rider vide cheque No.581829 dated 18.11.2009 drawn in favour of the complainant , who has duly acknowledged the receipt of the same.It is stated that the insurance cover under the Master policy was of two types i.e. one was credit shield i.e. PPI and other was Accidental Benefits rider. The DLA was insured for a credit shield cover to the extent of the amount borrowed by him from GECW with the accidental cover of Rs.5,00,000/- and the said amount had been dpaid to the complainant under accidental death benefits rider. As the OPs discharged all their contractual obligations under the insurance cover, there is no further liability whatsoever on their part. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Ms.Neelam Singh, Sr.Manager, Legal alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP10 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the claim amount of Rs.5lacs, for the policy in question was paid by the OPs to the complainant on 18.11.2009. As such cause of action accrued on 18.11.2009. As per Section 24A of the Act, the complainant could have filed a complaint against the OPs within a period of two years from the date on which the cause of action arose, but the complainant has filed the present complaint on 25.10.2016, i.e. after a delay of about seven years from the date of accrual of cause of action. Therefore, the present complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of being barred by limitation.
The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had filed the application against the OPs under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act,2002 before the Permanent Lok Adalat on 1.5.2015. As per the liberty given by the Hon’ble Permanent Lok Adalat, vide order dated _____the complainant has filed the complaint before this Hob’ble Forum on 25.10.2016. As such the present complaint filed by the complainant cannot said to be barred by limitation.
7. Admittedly, the OPs have paid a sum of Rs.5lac to the complainant as death claim benefits under the policy in question through cheque dated 18.11.2009, as is evident from the letter dated 16.11.2009 Ex.OP10. Thus, the cause of action has arisen to the complainant on 18.11.2009. It is not out of place to mention here that the complainant had moved an application before the Hon’ble Permanent Lok Adalat on 1.5.2015 i.e. after the passing of five years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Hon’ble Permanent Lok Aadalat, while disposing off the said application, vide order dated 25.5.2016 had granted liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of her grievance. It may be stated here that a person can file a complaint before the Consumer Forum, as per provisions of the Act. In Section 24A of the Act, it is envisaged that a person can file a complaint within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the present case, the cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the OPs on 18.11.2009, whereas she has filed the present complaint on 25.10.2016, i.e. after a delay of almost seven years from the date of accrual of cause of action. As such the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by time. In the case of State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC), wherein, The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, if the complaint is barred by time and yet the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order setaside.
8. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the above cited case, we hereby dismiss the complaint on the ground of limitation only, without going into the merits of the case. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:-28.2.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
