No. 3/12.01.2011.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. Chandrasekhar Mukherjee, the Ld. Advocate and Respondents through Mrs. Koyeli Mukhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate are present.  The BNA filed by the Appellant be kept with the record.

This appeal is by the Complainant against the order of dismissal of the complaint case being No. CDF 142 of 2010 by the District Forum, Hooghly on the ground of limitation.

Evidently deceased Jayabati Pal during her lifetime purchased two endoment Assurance Policies from the O.P. Life Insurance Corporation of India respectively for the assured sum of Rs.25,000/- and 20,000/- respectively.  During the subsistence of the said two Insurance Policies said Jayabati Pal died on 30.01.1999.  On her death the nominee of the said deceased, Complainant herein, filed a complaint case without lodging any claim with the Insurer – O.P.  The said claim case was dismissed as the Complainant did not formally lodged any claim with the Insurer, but with the observation that she would be at liberty to file a case on the said Policies if she did not get any service from the Insurer.  The said order of disposal of the earlier complaint case was made on 23.05.2001.  From the materials on record it is found that soon after the disposal of the earlier complaint case as above, the Complainant asked for a complaint form from the Insurer – O.P. on June 18, 2001, on 01.08.2002 and thereafter lastly on 23.04.2007 without any success.  It has been alleged by the Complainant that in spite of aforesaid repeated demands for the claim form, the Insurer – O.P. did not supply her any claim form.  The present complaint case has thereafter been filed sometime in the year 2008 which has been dismissed by the Forum below on the ground of limitation by holding that repeated representation would not keep the period of limitation running for the purpose of filing of complaint.

Upon careful perusal of the records of this case it is evident that after 01.08.2002 when allegedly prayer was made for supplying a claim form to the Complainant by the Insurer without any success, the Complainant went into a slumber for more than 4½ years till 23.04.2007 when she allegedly made a further demand for claim form from the O.P. – Insurer.  No explanation whatsoever has been given by the Complainant in the above complaint case as to why no steps were taken nor any complaint was filed before the Consumer Forum within the said period for non-supply of the said claim form after the aforesaid letter dated 01.08.2002 was written to the Insurer – O.P.  The said letter dated 23.04.2007 further seeking for a claim form from the O.P. – Insurer was written by the Complainant only for the purpose of filing this complaint after long lapse of more than 4½ years.  Since no explanation has been given for writing such letter dated 23.04.2007 after expiry of more than 4½ years from the letter dated 01.08.2002 and in view of the settled proposition of law that repeated representation would not keep the period of limitation running, we are in complete agreement with the District Forum that the complaint was absolutely barred by limitation. 

The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 2210 cited by the Complainant has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case.  On the contrary the same goes against the Complainant.  It has been held therein that expression, “shall not admit a complaint” occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder.  As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing.  Since the complaint has been filed after expiry of long seven years from 23.05.2001 i.e. the date of disposal of the complaint case and after 4½ years from 01.08.2002 when an application was made by the Complainant to the O.P. – Insurer for supplying her a claim form and furthermore there being no reason whatsoever for seating tight over the matter till 23.04.2007 when a further application was made for such supply of claim form only for the purpose of filing the present complaint case, we are of the view that the limitation started running from 23.05.2001 when the earlier complaint case was disposed of as above and on the date of filing of the present complaint the same was barred by limitation.  The other decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in (2010) 4 WBLR (CPNC) 612 cited by the Appellant has also no manner of application in the case in hand.  It has been held therein that the cause of action in relation to the insurance claim would arise from the date of repudiation.  Till the time the claim preferred by the Complainants were not disposed of by the Appellant one way or the other the cause of action would continue.  In the case in hand the Complainant did never lodge any claim with the Insurer – O.P. for which it had no occasion either to repudiate the claim or to settle the same.  On the contrary the case of the Complainant is that the claim form for the purpose of lodging the claim, has not been supplied to the Complainant.   On facts as stated hereinbefore the complaint that has been filed for non-supply of such claim form being barred by limitation as above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.   The appeal is accordingly dismissed.