Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 17th day of September, 2004
C.D.No.2/2004
B.Gokaramma,
W/o. Boya Bangi Thimmappa,
R/o. Pulakurthy (V),
Kodumur (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad.
-Vs-
1. Secretary,
Primary Agricultural Co.Op. Society,
Pulakurthy,
Kodumur (M),
Kurnool Dist. .. . Opposite party
2. General Manager,
K.D.C.C.Bank,
Near Collectors Complex,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party
3. The Divisional Manager,
M/s. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Bhupal Complex,
Kurnool .. . Opposite party No.3 represented by his
counsel Sri C. Nagendranath
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This Consumer dispute case of the complainant is field under section 12 for C.P. Act 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties for payment of Rs.1,00, 000/- towards the amount of insurance cover under Janatha Accident Policy Scheme of her late husband Boya Bangi Thimappa who died on 30.3.2000 due to electric shock, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and any other relief or relifs which the complainant is remaining entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant is that her late husband Boya Bangi Thimappa was member of Primary Agricultural Co-operative society Pullakurthi (V), Kodumur (M) with General No.4997, was enrolled to Janatha Accident Policy Scheme along with other members of the said society for the years 1998, 1999, and 2000 contributing Rs.21/- as premium through opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.3 and during the subsistence of the said Group Insurance Policy on 30.3.2000 complainant’s husband died due to accidental electric shock and the claim was made to opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.1 enclosing the require document records. But the opposite party No.3 did not settled the said claim and instead repudiated the said claim alleging that no insurance premium was received by it pertaining to G. No. 4997 by Thippanna and the said G.No.4997 pertaining to one K.Pedda Sunkanna. Hence the opposite parties are remaining deficient in service.
3. In substantiation of its case the complainant filed the following documents Viz (1) FIR No.13/2000 dt 30.3.2000 of C.Belagal P.S (2) inquest report held over Boya Thimappa (3) Bunch of three receipts issued by opposite party No.1 to the deceased (4) copy of phamplet issued by Oriental Insurance Company (5) letter dt 16.1.2001 addressed by Branch Manager, K.D.C.C Bank, Kodumur to opposite party No.3 (6) letter dt 12.2.2001 addressed by opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.1 (7) legal notice dt 20.7.2002 issued by complainant counsel to opposite party No.1 to 4 (8) Xerox copy of Post Mortem Examination dt 31.3.2000 in crime No. 13/2000 of Boya Thimmappa (9) Xerox copy of death certificate of Boya Thimmappa and (10) reply legal notice dt 16.8.2002 of opposite party No.3 to complainant’s counsel besides to her sworn affidavit in-reiteration of her complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.10 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 filed Vakalath through its counsel but did not contest the case. The opposite party No.2 remaining absent through out the case proceedings. The opposite party No.3 appeared through its counsel and participated in the case proceedings by filing its denial written version.
5. The written version of opposite party No.3 besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complaint in facts and in law alleges no privy of it with the complainant and disputing the General No. 4997 as issued to one K.Pedda Sunkanna and not to Boya Bangi Thimmappa. As per the terms and condition of the policy the opposite party No.3 on receiving of necessary premium from the Head of list of members from opposite party No.1 covers the risk of those members only. The policy shall be issued to cover only such of the members of opposite party No.1 who have General ledger number and who have availed loans and no other persons shall be covered under the said policy as it is a specific group policy for the borrowers of opposite party No.1only. The list received by opposite party No.3 from opposite party No.1, the G.No.4997 mention the name of K.Pedda Sunkanna and not Boya Bangi Thimmappa and the same was informed to opposite party No.1 vide letter 12.2.2001 and no further clarification was given in that regard. There after opposite party No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant through its communication dt 30.3.2001 on the above mentioned grounds. It further submits that the claim of the complainant is barred by limitation as claim was repudiated on 30.3.2001 and the complaint was filed on 12.11.2003 and seeks for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6. In substantiation of its case the opposite party No.3 filed following documents Viz (1) exclusions and conditions of the Janatha Accident Insurance Policy (2) list of borrowing members covered under said policy sent by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.3(3) letter dt 3.4.2000 addressed by opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.1 (4) letter dt 18.1.2001 addressed by opposite party no.3 to opposite party No.2 (5) true copy of letter dt 12.2.2001 addressed by opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.1 (6) repudiation letter dt 30.3.2001 of opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.1 and (7) claim form dt 24.1.2001 submitted by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.3 besides to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.7 for its appreciation in this case.
7. Hence the point for consideration is what to relief the complaint is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties:?
8. The Ex A.10 is the reply legal notice dt 16.8.2002 of opposite party No.3 to the complainant’s legal notice dt 20.7.2002 in Ex A.7, reveals that the complainant’s husband late Boya Bangi Thimmappa was member of opposite party No.1’s society with G.No.4997 and the opposite party No.2 deducted Rs.21/- towards insurance premium and paid to opposite party No.3, but as per its records the deceased G. No. 4997 was not tallying with the list of borrowers submitted by opposite party No.2 in Ex B.2, the G.No.4997 pertains to one K.Pedda Sunkanna as per Ex B.2 and not that of complainants’s late husband Boya Bangi Thimmappa. Hence under the above circumstances the opposite party No.3 repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant did not place any material to the effect that the complainant’s husband was allotted G.No.4997 by opposite party No.1’s society, hence in the above circumstances the opposite parties repudiation of claim cannot be held improper.
9. The Ex A.3 is the bunch of three receipts issued by opposite party No.1 to the deceased, it envisages loan amount taken by the deceased from opposite party No.1 and Rs.13.75/- was paid towards Janatha Group Insurance Policy Premium on 27.3.2000 for covering the risk of the deceased. It also envisages the G. No. 4997 as that of the complainant’s husband but in the Ex B.2 the said G.No. 4997 was allotted to one K.Pedda Sunkanna as submitted to opposite party No.3. The Ex B.2 is the borrowing list prepared by opposite party No.2 of its borrowing members collecting required premium and its remittance to said Janantha Group Insurance Policy proposed by opposite party No.3 and covering the life risk of each member for Rs.1,00,000/- under the said Group Insurance Policy. The said list in Ex B.2 does not bear the name of the complaiannt’s husband under G.No.4997. Hence the claim of the complainant was not entertained and repudiated by the opposite party No.3.
10. The opposite parties in its written version avernments in para 7 submits that the complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by opposite party No.3 on 30.3.2001 and the complaint was filed on 12.11.2003. The complainant submits that the reply legal notice of opposite party No.3 in Ex A.10 dt 16.8.2002 as last cause of action for filing this case in this Forum. But the above contention of the complainant cannot be accepted as per the decision of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in MS Manorama Vij Vs Swatantra Land and Finance Pvt Ltd reported in Vol II(2003) C.P.J page 558, it was held that visits to opposite parties office and sending legal notice would not extend limitation. Even though the complainant alleges that last cause of action to the date of reply legal notice of opposite party No.3 dt 16.8.2002 in Ex B.6, there appears no much force and merits in the said contentions of the complainant as the limitation cannot be extended by personal visits and by causing notices and receiving reply legal notices as per the decision of Hon’ ble Delhi State Commission supra. The complaint of the complainant was filed on 12.11.2003 i.e after delay of 8 months and 11 days and the complainant did not sought to file any petition to condone the said delay in filing this complaint. There being no order of the Forum condoning the said delay of the period of over and the above two years statutorily prescribed by the Act, in the absence of any such endeavour of the part of the complainant in seeking the condonation of delay of 8 months and 11 days, the case of the complainant is remained barred by statutory limitation of two years prescribed u/s 24(A) of C.P.Act, 1986. Hence the case of complainant is remaining barred by limitation, therefore it is not necessary to go into the other material and to decide the case on merits.
12. Hence, in the result, of the above discussion as a complaint is not maintainable for want of limitation, the case of the complainant is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 17th day of September, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
