Tripura

StateCommission

RP/2/2019

The Chairman, Tripura Gramin Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Champa Das - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. T.K. Modak, Mr. M.P. Hazra

20 Dec 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.RP.2.2019

 

 

 

1. The Chairman,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Head Office, Abhoynagar, Agartala, Pin - 799005.

 

2. The General Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Head Office, Abhoynagar, Agartala, Pin - 799005.

 

3. The Branch Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Durgabari Branch, Agartala, Pin - 799015.

… … … … Petitioner/Opposite Parties.

 

Vs

 

1. Smt. Champa Das,

W/o Late Kajal Kr. Das,

Village - Tufania, Lunga, Durgabari,

P.S. Airport, P.O. Tebaria, Pin - 799015.

… … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

 

 

PRESENT

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

Mr. Kamalendu Bikash Das,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

For the Petitioners:                                      Mr. Tapan Kumar Modak, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                     Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:   20.12.2019.

 

J U D G M E N T [O r a l]

  

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 27.08.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.11 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum rejected the petition on the ground of maintainability of the complaint petition filed by the opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3, the petitioners herein.

2. Heard Mr. Tapan Kumar Modak, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Bank) as well as Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant).
3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The respondent-complainant, Smt. Champa Das, filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum alleging that her husband, namely, Kajal Kr. Das, now deceased, purchased Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY) Policy from the opposite parties i.e. the petitioners herein, through Bank Account of the deceased Kajal Kr. Das and in the said Policy, the respondent-complainant is the nominee of her deceased husband being wife. The Aadhar Card of Insurance Policy of her deceased husband-policy-holder is 9065-2820-1736 and the Policy was made on 18.05.2015 for a sum of life insurance coverage of Rs.2 lacs and during coverage of the said insurance policy, the husband of the complainant Kajal Kr. Das died on 23.11.2015. After the death of her deceased husband, complainant several times requested to the opposite parties-Bank for making payment of the Insurance Policy amounting to Rs.2 lacs, but the petitioners-opposite parties, Bank did not pay the insured amount. Hence, the complaint petition.

4. The opposite parties-Bank i.e. the petitioners herein, filed an application challenging the maintainability of the complaint petition on the ground of limitation, as the complaint petition was filed after 39 months from the date of cause of action i.e. the death of the policy holder, the deceased husband of the complainant. The learned District Forum rejected the application challenging the maintainability of the complaint petition. Hence, the Revision petition.
5. Mr. Modak, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned order would contend that firstly, the complainant’s deceased husband submitted his Consent-cum-Declaration Form on 18.05.2015 and thereafter, on 30.05.2015, the premium of the Policy amounting to Rs.330/- was auto debited by the opposite parties-Bank from the account of deceased husband of the complainant and then the aforesaid amount was auto credited in the account of deceased husband of the complainant i.e. the money which was received by the opposite parties-Bank, the same was refunded. He has further submitted that on 23.11.2015, the insured, the deceased husband of the complainant died and the complaint petition was filed after 39 months from the date of death of the deceased insured i.e. the cause of action. As the complaint petition was filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1996, the opposite parties-Bank filed an application raising the question of maintainability which was disposed of by the learned District Forum by its impugned order. According to him, the impugned order rejecting the petition for challenging maintainability is wholly illegal and unfair and thus the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he has submitted that mere several correspondences by the complainant during the intervening period of limitation do not extend the period of limitation provided in the Act and in support of his aforesaid contention he has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as National Commission) passed in National Agricultural Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. (First Appeal No.65 of 2018) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission considering an order of the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Commission vide order dated 02.08.2011 passed in Revision Petition No.640 of 2006 in (Ramratan M. Shriwas Vs. Jayant H. Thakkar) observed that “(2) We agree with the view taken by the fora below. It is well established by catena of judicial pronouncements that once a period of limitation starts, it cannot be enlarged or extended by prolonged correspondence between the parties. The provision regarding limitation period contained in Section 24A being of mandatory nature, the fora below was duty bound to determine whether the complaint is within the limitation period and since on consideration of the material placed before them, they found that the complaint was barred by limitation and sufficient cause had not been made out to condone the delay in question, no fault could be found with the impugned orders.”  and finally dismissed the appeal on both counts on merit as well as on limitation.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Pal, Ld. Counsel submits that neither the complainant nor her husband was informed regarding the refund of the Policy amount amounting to Rs.330/- on 06.06.2015 which was auto debited on 30.05.2015 from the account of the deceased husband of the complainant. He again submits that after the death of deceased husband of the complainant on 23.11.2015 being the nominee of her deceased husband, she submitted several representations claiming the benefit of the Insurance Policy, but the opposite parties-Bank did not response to the respondent-complainant, thus the period of limitation for filing the complaint petition would be counted from the date of filing of the last representation dated 20.12.2017. He has further contended that though the premium of the Policy amounting to Rs.330/- was returned on 06.06.2015, but again on 26.05.2016 an amount of Rs.330/- was auto debited. Thus it cannot be said that the premium was refunded.
7. We have gone through the complaint petition as well as the petition filed by the opposite parties-Bank challenging the question of maintainability. We have also gone through the impugned order. According to the learned District Forum, the cause of action in case of the complainant is continuing being she had filed applications/representations on four occasions i.e. on 14.06.2016, 02.05.2017, 23.06.2017 and 20.12.2017 before the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 and the opposite parties did not response to those applications. Upon perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in National Agricultural (supra), we are of the considered opinion that mere filing of representation one after another would not extend the period of limitation as prescribed by the statute when there was admittedly no application filed by the respondent-complainant for condonation of delay. We have also gone through the judgment of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai passed in CC/16/1070 (Hema Hitesh Shah, Hitesh R. Shah Vs. HDFC Bank Limited) wherein the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Commission while deciding a condonation petition relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission held that “The delay is not properly explained and only the correspondence during the intervening period does not extend the time of limitation provided in the Act and therefore, we do not find any force in the contention of Complainant that limitation starts from date 28/03/2014 mentioned above.” As the basic question before us in the instant Revision Petition is that as to whether a complaint petition can be filed beyond the limitation period without any condonation petition as prescribed by the statute as well as whether the order of the learned District Forum is correct or not. After going through the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble National Commission and the Maharashtra State Commission and the facts of the case, we are of the view that a complaint petition cannot be entertained beyond the statutory period of 2 (two) years as prescribed in the statute without any condonation petition and mere submitting several representations within the intervening period of limitation prescribed by the statute would not extend the period of limitation. Thus, according to us, the impugned order of the learned District Forum is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. However, as we did not express any opinion on merit, the learned District Forum may decide the case in accordance with law.   

In the result, the Revision petition is allowed.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura