BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 55/11.
THIS THE 21st DAY OF NOVEMBER 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 :- Smt. Ambamma W/o. Late Sharanappa, Age:
Major, Occ: Household, R/o. Near Buddekal Circle, Hutti village, Tq. & Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Branch
Office, Sindhanur, Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur.
2. General Manager, Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd.,
Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.
Date of institution :- 08-08-11.
Date of disposal :- 21-11-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. Mallangouda, Advocate.
Respondent No-1 represented by Sri. T. Keshavacharya, Advocate.
Respondent No-2 represented by Sri. Mallikarjun, 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.
ORDER ON IA-1 U/SEC. 24(A)(2) OF C.P. ACT DT. 08-08-11.
This is the application filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay of (2) years (4) months (14) days in filing her complaint for the reasons stated in the annexed affidavit to this application.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case in this IA are that, her husband Sharanappa purchased four LIC policies as noted in Para-1 of her complaint from opposite LIC of India. He died on 22-01-07, she being the nominee under all the policies filed claim petition before opposite LIC of India, but they have not settled her claim, in spite of several oral and written requests made by her, accordingly she filed this complaint U/sec. 12 of C.P. Act. This application is filed for to condone the delay as she is illiterate and under the hope of settling her claim. She do not know the consequences of non filing her complaint well within time. Hence this application is filed for to condone the delay of (2) years (4) months (7) days in filing her complaint. If, this application is not allowed, she is going to suffer irreparable loss and hardship. No harm is going to be caused to other side. Hence, it is requested by her for to condone the delay among other grounds as noted in affidavit.
3. Opposite No-1 LIC of India appeared in his case, through its Advocate filed its objection by denying the allegation made by the complainant and also contended that, there are no proper, sufficient and good grounds to condone such abnormal delay. Hence it prayed for to reject this application among other grounds.
4. Opposite No-2 General Manager, Hutti Gold Mines Hutti, who is an employer of deceased Sharanappa appeared and filed his objections to this application.
5. In view of the contentions and rival contentions of the parties in this petition. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant has made out proper, sufficient and good grounds to condone the delay of (2) years (4) months (14) days in filing her complaint, as prayed in this application.
2. What order.
6. 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:-
7. Admittedly complainant is the nominee under the four LIC policies purchased by her husband Sharanappa at his life time from opposite NO-1 LIC of India, opposite No-2 is employer of deceased Sharanappa. All the LIC policies are under Salary Deduction Scheme by opposite No-2.
8. It is undisputed fact that, insured Sharanappa died on 22-01-07 complainant being the wife and nominee of said Sharanapa filed claim petition on 20-06-07 before opposite No-1.
9. Her contention in this petition is that, she requested opposite No-1 through her letters dt. 18-12-08, 19-01-09, 11-12-10 and finally on 19-04-11 but opposite not settled her claim. This is the first ground for the delay in filing her complaint.
10. Second ground as contended by her is that, she is illiterate, she do not the consequences of law. Hence she did not filed her complaint well within the time of two years.
11. Section 24(A)(1) is mandatory in nature the consumer forum have to entertain a consumer complaint U/sec. 12 of C.P. Act within two years from the date of cause of action. This is pre-emptry in nature. There is no scope for consumer forum to entertain the consumer complaint after limitation period of two years.
12. Section 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act is not a mandatory in nature. Complainant shall establish the reasonable cause or proper grounds to condone the delay in filing her complaint, if it is time barred.
13. Now, it is well established said fact by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as the Hon’ble National Commission in below noted cases.
(1) 2010 (2) CPR 371 N.C.
Delhi Development AuthorityV/s. Rajkumar Meena.
(2) (2006) 1 SCC 164.
Haryana Development Authority V/s. B.K.Sood.
(3) III (2000) CPJ 181.
Dr. Jayaprakash and another V/s. Aleem Construction Pvt. Ltd., and Anr.
That complainant herself stated that, she filed claim petition on 20-06-07, thereafter she made representations to opposite vide her letter dt. 18-12-08, 19-01-09, 11-12-10 and finally on 19-04-11 which are the proper and good grounds to condone the delay of (2) years (4) months (14) days, admittedly the cause of action arose to complainant on 22-02-07 which is the date of death of her husband, even her claim petition dt. 20-06-07 is taken as the cause of action for her, she ought to have complaint within two years from the date of death of her husband or the date of her claim petition i.e, on 20-06-07. Admittedly this complaint was filed by her before this Forum on 06-08-11 i.e, after the delay of (2) years (7) months (14) days as calculated by the complainant herself. As per the settled principles of law from the rulings referred above, we can say that, whatever may be duration of the correspondence in between the complainant with opposite No-1 as stated above, will not enlarge the period of limitation of two years.
14. Issuance of lawyer notice after period of two years will also not extending period of two years. In view of the settled position of law, Reason shown as correspondences made by her from 20-06-07 till final letter dt. 19-04-11 is not a good ground to condone the abnormal delay as prayed in her complaint.
15. The second ground of her for to condone the delay is that, she is illiterate, she do not know the legal consequences. This ground cannot be accepted as the proper and good grounds to condone the delay as the complainant made her efforts to write letters dt. 18-12-08, 19-01-09, 11-12-10 and 19-04-11 without approaching consumer forum within time cannot be said that, she is illiterate and do not legal consequences hence this ground is also not proper, reasonable and good grounds to condone such abnormal delay. Hence we answered Point No-1 in negative.
POINT NO.2:-
16. In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
IA-1 filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act dt. 08-08-11 is rejected.
Consequently complaint filed by the complainant U/sec. 12 of C.P. Act against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 is dismissed, as it is barred complaint.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 21-11-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
