Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/32/2017

Harpreet Kaur and Surinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Star Union Dai Ichi and other - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.32 of 2017

                                                     Date of institution : 19.05.2017                               

                                                        Date of decision    : 21.03.2018

1. Harpreet Kaur Wife of Surinder Singh
2. Surinder Singh son of Randhir Singh

Both residents of House No.625, Sector 55, Mohali.

……..Complainant

Versus

1.  Star Union Dai-ichi, Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 11^th Floor, Raghuleela Arcade, IT Park, Sector 30-A, Opposite Vashi Railway Station, Vashi, Navi Mumbai.
2. Manager, Union Bank of India, Branch Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                              

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          

Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh. Munish Gulati, Adv.Cl. for complainant.

                      Sh. R.K. Dhiman, Adv.Cl. for OP No.1.

                      Sh. Vinay Sood, Adv.Cl. for OP No.2.

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainants, Harpreet Kaur and Surinder Singh, both residents of House No.625, Sector 55, Mohali, have filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant No.1 is having a saving account No.604002010001467 in Union Bank of India, Fatehgarh Sahib. On 15.11.2010, an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been withdrawn from the said account without intimating/informing and obtaining the consent of the complainant. When the complainant inquired about the said transaction, the manager, namely; Tarsem Uppal told the complainant that said amount was withdrawn for paying the first premium installment of Rs.14,992/- for the policy bearing No.00278858. The complainant No.1 instructed OP No.2 not to withdraw any amount without her consent. Thereafter, in the month of January 2014, an agent of OP No.1, namely; Sh. Dinesh Malik, telephonically informed the complainant No.1 to deposit Rs.30,000/- more so that OP No.1 could refund the whole amount along with interest to the complainant. On the assurance of the said agent, complainant No.1 deposited Rs.30,000/- with OP No.1 vide cheque No.001503 dated 19.03.2014. But instead of refunding the deposited amount to complainant No.1, OP No.1 issued another policy bearing No.00759319 in the name of complainant No.2 for the sum assured of Rs.3,40,000/- with basic premium of Rs.28519/- to be paid for 15 years annually.  OP No.1 in connivance with its agent, fraudulently issued two policies, one in the name of complainant No.1 by withdrawing an amount of Rs.15,000/- from her saving account without her consent and another policy in the name of complainant No.2 by making false assurance that the cheque for Rs.30,000/- will be utilized towards the continuation of first policy. The complainants served legal notice upon OPs but all in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.45,000/- along with interest and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
3.  The complaint is contested by the OPs. In reply to complaint OP No.1 stated that complainant No.1 had submitted a duly filled and executed Proposal Form to OP No.1 and it had issued policy No.00278856 on 29.11.2010 to the complainant on the basis of information provided in proposal form and on receipt of premium amount of Rs.15000/-. Thereafter the complainant again submitted a duly filled and executed proposal form and OP No.1 in accordance to the same issued policy No.00759319 in favour of complainant No.2 on 2.03.2014. The complainants had subscribed for the above said policies after being fully aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and out of their own free will and consent. The insurance contract was executed between the complainants and OP No.1 and the same is governed by terms and conditions of the policies. It is further stated that in case the complainants, after receiving the said policies, were not satisfied with the terms and conditions, she/he could have asked for the cancellation of the said policies within 15 days of receipt of these policies and could have opted for the free look period. However, the complainants did not opt the "Free Look Option".  There has been no fraud committed by OP No.1 against the complainant. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In reply to complaint, OP No.2 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complaint is misuse and abuse of the process of the law; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant; the complainants have not come to the court with clean hands and complainants have got no cause of action to file the present complaint and this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint, OP No.2 stated that the said amount of Rs.15,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant No.1 as per her instructions. The complainant No.1 with her free will and consent and voluntarily had got the life insurance policy after filing the requisite forms and signing the same. The OP No.2 had never withdrawn the amount without the consent of complainant No.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.  
6.  

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the cause of action is a continuous one. He pleaded that for the last two years the complainant was trying to get in touch with Mr. Dinesh Malik, but when the complainant did not receive any positive reply, complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs, hence the present complaint is not barred by limitation and the same deserves to be decided on merits of the case.

8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the pleadings, evidence led by the parties, written submissions as well as oral submissions, we find that there is force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the OPs. It is established from the welcome letter alongwith policy documents placed on record by the complainant Ex.C-4, that the complainant had received the same in March/April 2014.The complainant further failed to avail the free look period of 15 days, in case he had not opted for the said policy. From the perusal of the welcome letter alongwith the proposal form and first premium receipt, it is established that the cause of action to file the present complaint arose from the year 2014 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2017 i.e after the prescribed limitation under Section 24A of the Act. Further the complainant has not even filed application for condonation of delay of more than one year approximately.

9. In our opinion sending of legal notice or letters would not extend the period of limitation. The Hon’ble National Commission, in case titled as Harbhajan Sharma V/s Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr,I(2015) CPJ 672 (NC) had observed in para no.6;

“Mere writing of letters to respondent authority and waiting for reply for undue longtime would not extend period of limitation. District Forum wrongly treated cause of action as continuous one. Complaint prima facie, barred by limitation.”

Recently the Hon’ble National Commission, in Ankesh Goyal V/s Housing Board & Anr,I (2018)111(NC) observed that complaint is not maintainable if barred by limitation, while referring to Hon’ble Apex Court, in State Bank of India V/s M/s.B.S.Agricultural,II(2009)CPJ 29(SC) wherein, it was held that “if complaint is barred by time and yet the consumer Forum decides the complaint On Merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality.”

In Haryana Urban development Authority V/s B.K.Sood,IV(2005)CPJ1(SC) wherein it was observed in para no.11

 “The Section debars any Fora set up under the Act, admitting a complaint unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen. Neither the National Commission nor the State Commission had considered the preliminary objections raised by appellant that the claim of respondent was barred by time.”

10.                  Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion and the recent decision of  Hon’ble National Commission, in Ankesh Goyal V/s Housing Board & Anr(Supra) and  various judgments cited above, we find that the present complaint is barred by limitation, therefore we don’t find it appropriate to go into the merits of the case. Hence the present complaint stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.

11.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 16.03.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.           

Pronounced

Dated: 21.03.2018

(A.P.S.Rajput)       

         President

 

(Inder Jit)        

     Member