Delhi

North East

CC/53/2020

Smt. Meena Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of Delhi - Opp.Party(s)

04 Dec 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 53/2020

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt Meena Devi W/o Late Shri Ambika Prasad R/o H.no. 912, Gali no. 13, Part-I First Pusta, Sonia Vihar Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	The Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Branch Unit no. 126 Bharat Base Building, 10 Darya Ganj New Delhi-110002	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

27.10.2020 04.12.2020 04.12.2020

 

Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, President (Addl. Charge)

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, President (Addl. Charge)

 

1. Arguments heard through video conferencing on admission. It is submitted by the counsel for complainant that her deceased husband had availed of Life Insurance Policy bearing no. 126040350 from OP on 28.03.2011 for sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000/- with premium of Rs. 2,060/- to be paid quarterly till 2028 out of which the complainant paid first premium on 09.01.2012 after which due to prolonged sickness and being bedridden March 2012 onwards, the DLA died on 24.09.2013 for which reason he could not pay the ensuing premium which was due on 28.03.2012. When no claim amount was released by OP for the next more than six years, the complainant through counsel issued a legal notice dated 06.12.2019 to OP demanding payment of death claim amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest. The OP vide reply thereto dated 17.12.2019 informed the complainant’s counsel that since the date of first unpaid premium was 28.03.2012, no claim was payable as per policy terms and conditions. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint praying for issuance of direction to OP to release the death claim amount with interest and compensation.
2. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for complainant and have keenly examined the material/correspondence on record. It is clear and apparent from the record placed before us and also from clarification sought by the Forum from the counsel for the complainant that there was no communication in writing between the parties after the death of the DLA which occurred in 2013 (as per the death certificate) for a long period of six years except a legal notice sent in December 2019 by the complainant’s counsel to the OP. The complainant was put to specific question of the aspect of limitation and whether the same can be extended by sending legal notice. The complainant had no explanation for remaining inactive for six years since death of her husband (DLA) in 2013 till issuance of legal notice in December 2019. Clearly the cause of action arose in September 2013 when the DLA died and claim became payable but no intimation was sent by the complainant to OP for informing about death of DLA and release of death claim. The complainant should have immediately taken action of filing complaint within two years by September 2015. But on the contrary the complainant remained inactive for more than six years and suddenly sent legal notice to OP in December 2019 as per the records and admission of the complainant and filed the present complaint after lapse of almost five years of the expiry of the limitation period.  This cannot entitle the complaint for waiver of limitation period and it is pertinent to mention here that the complaint is not even accompanied with any condonation of delay application under Section 69 (2) of CPA 2019.
3. Section 69 of CPA deals with the limitation period for complaints to be filed within two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen and contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words the consumer commissions do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The law on the said issue has been clearly settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in so far as the nature and scope of Section 24 A (similar section in old Act of 1986) is concerned in the landmark judgments of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd (2009) 7 SCC 768, State Bank of India Vs B S Agricultural Industries (2009) 5 SCC 121 and V. N. Shrikhande (Dr) Vs Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53.  The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Jansatta Sahkari Awas Samati Ltd. Vs Kone Elevators India Pvt. Ltd. I (2016) CPJ 190 NC held that mere sending a legal notice does not constitute a cause of action nor does it extend a period of limitation prescribed in the Act in view of settled proposition of law under Section 24A of CPA as mandatory in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Agriculture Case (Supra) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court took the view that Section 24 A is peremptory in nature and requires consumer Forums to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Hon’ble National Commission in the Judgment of Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd and Anr. Vs Satinder Pal Singh II (2018) CPJ 245 (NC) has held that the complainant remaining inactive and suddenly sending legal notice to OP cannot entitle him for waiver of limitation period as any amount of correspondence cannot extend limitation period.
4. In light of the aforesaid judgments and settled law therein, even if the legal notice was sent by complainant in December 2019 and  was replied to by OP in December 2019 itself, the period of limitation would not extend beyond two years starting from September 2013 ending September 2015 and since the present complaint has been filed belatedly after more than five years, the same is time barred from the date of cause of action, being perverse to the special limitation period prescribed under CPA to resolve the consumer disputes in a speedy manner.
5. We therefore dismiss the present complaint as being time barred since admitting, such highly belated complaints the same would defeat the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of cost as per Regulation 21 (1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2020.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on 04.12.2020

 

(Arun Kumar Arya) President(Addl. Charge)

(Sonica Mehrotra)      Member