This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 16-12-11 in the presence of Smt K. Syamala, advocate for the complainant and of Sri M.V. Subba Rao, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record and after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:     The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking directions on the opposite party to pay Abhaya Gold Scheme amount ofRs.80,000/- together with interest @24% p.a., from 22-09-06 till realization and Rs.2,05,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, deficiency of service and costs.

2.  In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant’s wife late Smt Pandraju Jhansi Laxmi opened an account bearing No.ASB 50548 with opposite party bank under Abhaya Gold Scheme on 19-12-03.   As per the terms of the scheme if the account holder dies intestate the opposite party bank has to pay the balance amount of the deceased account and insurance under the scheme.  The complainant’s wife met with fire accident on 17-09-06 and she died on 22-09-06.  After the death of the complainant’s wife, the complainant approached the opposite party bank and intimated the death of his wife.   The complainant made several representations by oral and written to pay the amount under Abhaya Gold Scheme as mentioned supra but the opposite party postponing the same on some pretext or other.  The adamant nature of the opposite party to settle the claim the complainant suffered mental agony.   The complainant finally got issued a registered legal notice through his counsel to the opposite party on 04-10-10.   The opposite party received the same on 06-10-10.   The opposite party did not pay the amount nor given any reply to the complainant or to his counsel.  It amounts to deficiency of service.   Hence the complaint.

3.   The opposite party filed version and its contents in brief:

        It is true that the deceased Pandraju Jhansi Lakshmi was holding Abhaya Savings Bank Account with this opposite party and the said account is opened on the relevant date of 19-12-03 and the conditions of the said Abhaya Savings Bank account are applicable to the subject transaction.   It is pertinent to mention here that in case of Abhaya Savings Bank account the total claim is only upto Rs.25,000/- only.   The opposite party bank had a tie up with United India Insurance Company Limited which being a public sector insurance company and the claim if any arose in respect of the accounts of Abhaya Savings Account it will be received by this opposite party and will be forwarded to United India Insurance Company Limited will take up the issue and find out the claim and settle the claim as per their norms and more particularly the Abhaya Savings Account will cover for only accidents that occurred to any of its account holder.

        The complainant being a nominee to his wife Jhansi Lakshmi having submitted the claim the same was forwarded to United India Insurance Company Limited where the said claim was perused and on their thorough enquiry it was observed that the deceased P. Jhansi Lakshmi’s claim was repudiated on the following observation made by the Insurance company vide its letter dt. 22-01-08 “The facts of the case proves that he was suffering from neurological disorder.   Basing on the above facts the claim is not payable as per exclusions which reads as under – Death arising due to injury due to disorders of neurological or otherwise does not come under the scheme, since the insured died due to diseases, the same is not covered under the scheme, the claim is hereby repudiated” which duly served to the complainant and also acknowledged by the complainant while he approached this opposite party bank.   The complainant suppressed the fact of repudiation of claim and seeking the relief of claim as if the complainant is entitled to the amount as an automatic serving through this opposite party without any basis.   In view of these facts the United India Insurance Company Limited is a proper party to the proceedings and for non-joinder of the said party the complaint is liable to be dismissed with the said observations.

4.   Both parties have filed their respective affidavits.   Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-7 were marked on behalf of the opposite party.

5.    Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

        1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

        2. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service                   and to what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

6.   POINT No.1:-   This Forum on 24-03-11 took the following objections among others:

“2. Cause of action arisen on 22-09-06 when the account holder         died and complaint filed on 23-02-11, explain how this   complaint is filed within time U/s 24(A) of CP Act, 1986.

         3. The complainant claimed insurance amount.  So insurance                    company may be impleaded as a necessary party in this                         complaint”.

The complainant through his counsel submitted the following:

        “Resubmitted:

   2. The complaint made a claim before the opposite party immediately after death of account holder, but the opposite party has not settled the claim so far, so the claim is with in time u/s 24A of CP Act., as the cause of action is in continuation.    

    3.   The opposite party has not inform the name of insurance company and he accrued the account holder is covered for insurance of Rs.80,000/-.   So the opposite party is liable to pay insurance amount with interest”.

8.     The complainant took the risk of aspect of limitation by making such a resubmission.    The complaint was silent when he approached the opposite party.   The contention of the complainant is that he is not aware of the name of the insurance company falsified by his endorsement on EX.B-3.

9.   Ex.B-3 is copy of letter dated 22-01-08 addressed by M/s United India Insurance Company Limited repudiating the claim.  In Ex.B-3 it was mentioned “Muttinadhi - P. Subba Rao”.  The name of the person appearing in Ex.B-3 is name of the complainant.   It can therefore be assumed that the complainant had knowledge of repudiation of claim in 2008 itself.  The complainant approached this Forum suppressing the material information which affects the root of the case.

10.   In the absence of any documentary evidence showing when the complainant sent his documents to the opposite party the limitation starts from the date of the death of the account holder.   In all aspects the complaint is barred by limitation.

11.   The complainant failed to exercise minimum care to know from the opposite party to which insurance company they have got tie up inspite of objection taken by the registry.  It shows the callousness of the complainant.

12.   Therefore the complaint is not filed within the limitation period.   Hence the complaint is barred by limitation in accordance with Section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

13.   POINT No.3:-     In view of answers given in Point No.1 and 2 Forum opines that it is not necessary to answer this question.

In the result the complaint is barred by limitation and is dismissed without costs.

          Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 22^nd day of December, 2011.

MEMBER                        MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party :  

                                                                                                 PRESIDENT