BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 65/11.
THIS THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Kumari Manjula @ Mangamma D/o. late Pampanna,
age 8 years, minor by next friend natural grand mother Smt. Mariyamma W/o. late Mahadevappa, age 65 years, household, R/o. Umlooti village now residing at
Hullur village Tq. Sindhanoor.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., Near ICICI Bank, Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur.
Date of institution :- 13-09-11.
Date of disposal :- 16-09-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. Basavaraj.G.Yatanatti, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
ORDERS ON ADMISSION AND LIMITATION
This is the complaint filed by the complainant against opposite Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, for to grant in reliefs as noted in the prayer column of the complaint
2. Heard on the admission and on point of limitation. Perused the facts pleaded in the complaint and documents on which complainant relied upon.
4. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether this complaint is under limitation as per the requirement of section 24(a)(1) of C.P. Act and whether it can be admitted for further enquiry.
2. What order.
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
1) In Negative.
2) In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following.
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
6. It is the case of the complainant that, her deceased mother Lakshmamma obtained LIC policy at her life time for assured sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- she died on 03-04-08. Thereafter complainant filed claim petition by surrendering LIC policy with necessary documents. Opposite denied her claim, therefore she got issued legal notice dt. 19-08-11.
7. On perusal of the entire pleadings of the complainant it is a fact that, complainant made her case based on the alleged cause of action dt. 19-08-11 which is the date of her legal notice issued to opposite.
8 As per the letter filed by the complainant dt. 10-03-11 opposite stated regarding the denial of her claim by taking into consideration of these facts, letter dt. 10-03-11 of opposite letter of the complainant dt. 19-08-11 are not grounds to the complainant to say that, her cause of action to file this complaint as on 19-08-11 or 10-03-11 or on any subsequent dates for the reasons that, the correct date of cause of action arisen to the complainant is from the date of death of her mother i.e, on 03-04-08. As per the requirement of section 24(a)(1) of C.P. Act, complaint has to be filed within two years from 03-04-08 but not as pleaded in complaint. Admittedly complaint was filed by her before this Forum is on 13-09-11 i.e, after lapse of two years as per requirements of section 24(a)(1) of C.P. Act. Admittedly complainant not filed application U/sec. 24(a)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay in filing this complaint. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, neither letter dt. 10-03-11 nor letter dt. 19-08-11 are enlarging the period of limitation of two years as required by section 24(a)(1) of C.P. Act.
9. To come to this conclusion, we have placed reliance on the principles of the rulings noted below:
1) AIR 2009 SC 2210 State Bank of India V/s. M/s. V.S. Agriculture
Industries.
2) (2010) CJ 1152 (NC) Quality Silk Processor Pvt. Ltd., V/s. Oriental
Insurance Company
3) IV (2004) CPJ 240 Duglas Anthony V/s. Kerala Electricity Board.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, we have not accepted the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for complainant to hold that, this complaint is under limitation. We are of the clear view that, this complaint is barred by limitation and thereby it cannot be admitted, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in negative.
POINT NO.2:-
11. In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as it is time barred complaint.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 16-09-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
