Tripura

StateCommission

F.A 12/2014

The Managing Director N.I.C & Others - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt Juthika Das - Opp.Party(s)

Mr A.Nandi

03 Nov 2014

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

TRIPURA

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.F.A-12/2014

 

1. The Managing Director,

National Insurance Co.Ltd.,

3-Middleton Street, Kolkata-70001.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Udaipur Branch, Gomati, Tripura,

                                     ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellants.

Vs

1. Smt. Juthika Das,

W/O Shri Jadulal Das,

College Square, P.O-Sarasima,

P.S-Belonia, South Tripura.

 

2. Golden Multi Services Club Limited,

S.B.Mansion, 16-R.N.Mukharjee Road,

•  

                                    ….    ….    ….    ….    Respondents.

 

 

PRESENT :

       

             HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BAIDYA,

             PRESIDENT,

             STATE COMMISSION

                          

                  MR.H.CHAKRABORTY,IAS (Retd),

             MEMBER,

               STATE COMMISSION.

               

 

For the Appellants    :      Mr.A. Nandi,Adv.

            For the respondents   :      Mr.D.Bhattacharjee,Adv.

                                        

Date of Hearing         :     13.11.2014.

Date of delivery of Judgment  :27.12.2014.

             

 

J U D G M E N T

 

S.Baidya,J,

            This appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986 on 25.04.2014 by the appellants is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short District Forum), Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura, in case No.C.C-04 of 2012 whereby the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint petition directing the present appellant No-2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with 12% interest w.e.f. 19.05.2006 till the date of actual payment and an additional sum of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant petitioner, respondent No-1 herein.       

2. The case of the appellants as narrated in the memo of appeal, in brief, is that the complainant has filed the complaint petition under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming for realization of insured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the capacity as nominee due to premature death of her son namely Kaushik Das on account of murder on 07.02.2006 who was the holder of a Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy No-100300/47/01/9600022/03/96/30378. Sl. No-01867360/103040921261 issued by the appellant No-1.                                                 
3. It has also been stated that the respondent No-2 Golden Multi Services Club Limited is the corporate agent of the appellants and the complainant submitted her claim along with all necessary papers into the office of the respondent No-2 on 19.05.2006 and thereafter also the claimant on several times requested the respondent No-2 to settle the death claim and thereafter on 20.05.2010 the complainant received a letter from the appellant No-1 whereby she was asked for transmitting some documents and as asked for those documents were sent to the office of the appellant No-1 on 06.12.2010. It has also been alleged that the complainant by sending a letter dated 18.10.2012 requested for remitting the insured sum to her, but nothing was done in this regard and as such the complainant filed the complaint petition before the Ld. District Forum, Udaipur in the year 2012. It has also been stated that no notice was served upon the appellants and the judgment dated 13.12.2012 was passed against the appellants exparte and being aggrieved by that judgment the appellants have preferred the instant appeal on the grounds that the Ld. Forum have exceeded the jurisdiction vested upon him as he entertained a claim otherwise time barred as per provision of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, that the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate the authority of the appellant No-2 towards the settlement of any claim and wrongly imposed the burden for making payment of the award upon the present appellant No-2, that the Ld. Forum failed to assign any reason as to why a rate of interest of 12% since 19.05.2006 has been imposed by the impugned judgment and that the impugned judgment being time barred is not sustainable in the eye of law and hence the appellants have preferred the instant appeal praying for setting aside the impugned judgment.              

Points for consideration.

4.       The points for consideration are (1) whether the Ld. District Forum was legal, proper and justified in passing the award by the impugned judgment and (2) whether the claim preferred by the complainants in the complaint petition is barred under Section 24A of the Consumer Protction Act,1986 and (3) whether the impugned judgment is sustainable in the eye of law.     

                         Decision with Reasons.

5.  All the three points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.
6. Admittedly, the insured Kaushik Das on 01.02.2004 insured his life for the period from 01.02.2004 to 31.01.2019 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by securing a policy under Janata Personal Accident Insurance Scheme making his mother/complainant as his nominee. It is also admitted fact that the said Kaushik Das was murdered in the night of 07.02.2006 and the Police registered a case vide R.K.Pur Police Station case No-45/2006 dated 08.02.2006 under Section 302/201/34 of the I.P.C. It is also admitted position that the respondent No-2 is the corporate agent of the appellants.    
7. The learned advocate for the respondent No-1 submitted that the respondent No-1 being the nominee of deceased Kaushik Das lodged her claim to the office of the respondent No-2 on 19.05.2010, but in spite of repeated requests, nothing was done in this regard. He also submitted that thereafter, on 20.05.2010 the complainant received a letter from the office of the appellant No-1 by which the complainant was asked to furnish some documents which were sent accordingly on 06.12.2010. He also submitted that the present appellants failed to remit the insured amount to the complainant, in spite of several requests and being compelled, the complainant has filed the complaint petition before the Ld. District Forum who has been pleased to pass the award by the impugned judgment which being proper, legal and justified should be affirmed.
8. Although learned counsel for the respondent No-2 appeared earlier, but ultimately he did not turn up to represent the respondent No-2.
9. The learned advocate for the appellants submitted that in the District Forum no notice has been served upon the present appellants who are the O.P. No-1 and 3 in the complaint petition filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He also submitted that the insured Kaushik Das was murdered on 07.02.2006, but the complaint petition claiming the insured amount along with compensation has been filed in the Ld. District Forum only on 18.04.2012 i.e. after more than four years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. He also submitted referring to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that the period of limitation for filing the complaint petition claiming compensation is only two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. He also submitted that Sub-Section 2 of Section 24A of the said Act provides for entertaining a complaint petition even after the expiry of two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action if the complainant had any sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the statutory period of two years. He also submitted that the complainant nowhere stated in four corners of the complaint petition assigning any reason as to why such complaint petition has been filed by him after more than four years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. He also submitted that the complainant did not assign any cause for not filing the complaint petition within the statutory period. He also submitted that the filing of the complaint in the District Forum in violation of Section 24A of the C.P.Act, 1986 renders the complaint barred by law of limitation and therefore, the same was not legally maintainable, but the Ld. District Forum over-looked this mandatory provision of law as provided under Section 24A of the C.P.Act and used not a single word regarding this delay of more than four years in filing the complaint before it.   
10. He also submitted that the matter of limitation regarding filing of a complaint in the District Forum is a question of law and that question can be agitated at any stage of the proceeding and even in this appellate stage. He further submitted that the appellants did not get opportunity to raise the question of limitation in the District Forum and therefore, the appellants for the first time has raised the question of limitation in the memo of appeal. In this regard the learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the principle of law enunciated in the decision reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1210.  
11. The learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited decision clearly renders the complaint petition filed before the Ld. District Forum non-maintainable in law being barred under Section 24A of the C.P.Act, 1986 and therefore the impugned judgment being violative of Section 24A of the said Act cannot be sustained in the eye of law and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appeal should be allowed and the complaint petition filed before the Ld. District Forum should be dismissed.
12. Almost at the end of the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants, Mr.A.Nandi submitted that although the claim of the complainant-respondent No-1 contained in the complaint petition is time-barred under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, but the Insurance Company, the appellants herein is in favour of granting assured sum of Rupees one lakh to the complainant and if only the assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded in favour of the complainant, the Insurance Company has got no objection and for that the award passed by Ld. District Forum may be modified.     
13. It transpires that the appellants have pleaded in the memo of appeal that no notice was served upon them in the District Forum in connection with the said complaint case being C.C.04/2012 (C.P.A.04/2012). The record of the Ld. District Forum is before us. Admittedly, the appellant No-1 herein is the O.P. No-1 in the District Forum and the present appellant No-2 is the O.P. No-3 in the said C.C. 04/2012. It transpires that the O.P. No-3 who is the present appellant No-2 received the notice of the said C.P.A. 04/2012. It appears that the O.P. No-3 is the branch office of the head office i.e. O.P. No-1. So, it is palpable that the notice was duly served upon the O.P. No-3 who is the present appellant No-2. So, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that no notice was served upon the appellants is not at all acceptable. So, it is found that at least the O.P. No-3 received the notice sent by the Ld. District Forum. It further appears that the instant appeal has been filed by the O.P. No-3 for self and on behalf of the O.P. No-1. Therefore, it is found that the O.P. No-1 and the O.P. No-3 were sailing in the same boat which is evident from the filing of the instant appeal jointly. In the above premises, we are of the view that the plea of the appellants that the notice was not served upon them is not acceptable.
14. Going through the impugned judgment, we find that the Ld. District Forum used not a single word as to why the complaint petition filed after four years from the date of accrual of the cause of action was entertained by him. It further appears that the complainant also assigned no reason as to why he made such delay of more than four years for filing the complaint petition in the District Forum.
15. Going through the cited decision as referred by the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that the point of limitation is a question of law and it can be agitated at any stage of the proceeding. It transpires that the complainant adduced no evidence before the Ld. District Forum showing that within the period of limitation the appellants admitted the claim of the complainant and as such there was no scope to extend the period of limitation beyond the period of two years as provided under Section 24A of the C.P.Act, 1986. The learned counsel for the respondent No-1 could not show us anything as a reply in respect of a principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1210. Therefore, it is palpable that the filing of the complaint containing the claim by the complainant in the District Forum on 18.04.2012 is violative of the mandatory provision of law embodied under Section 24A of the C.P.Act, 1986 and accordingly, we are of the view that the said complaint being barred by law of limitation is not maintainable in the eye of law. As the complaint is filed in violation of the statutory period of two years as provided under Section 24A of the C.P.Act, 1986, the same is barred by law of limitation and therefore, the impugned judgment passed on that legally barred complaint is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appeal should be allowed and the complaint petition is also liable to be dismissed.
16. As regards the last submission of Mr.A.Nandi, Ld. Lawyer for the appellants we are of the view that no doubt, it will be a good gesture on the part of the Insurance Company as submitted by its Ld. Lawyer and accordingly, the Insurance Company on its own may grant the said assured sum to the complainant, but this Commission being a quasi-judicial body cannot entertain a time-barred claim and direct the Insurance Company, the appellants herein to make payment of the said assured sum to the complainant by this judgment and as such we are unable to act accepting the said submission of the Ld. Lawyer for the appellants.    
17. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 13.12.2012 passed in C.C. 04/2012 by the Ld. District Forum, Udaipur,Gomati, Tripura is hereby set aside and the complaint dated 18.04.2012 filed by the complainant, the respondent No-1 herein is, accordingly, dismissed being barred by law of limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986..

                   

 

                     MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

                            State Commission                                    State Commission

                                    Tripura                                                      Tripura