Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.04.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant Sahaj Paswan has filed this case on Performa stating therein that he purchased a cow in Rs. 9,500/- for which loan was given to him as per Government Policy and as per agreement the loan was liquidated by the bank because as per Government Policy the premium for the person below the poverty line was to be given by the bank to the insurance company but the bank did not pay the aforesaid amount.
It is further stated by the complainant that the bank continued to assured him about the aforesaid payment but on 04.02.2006 the counsel for the bank has sent a letter for paying the loan amount. The complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/-and Rs. 3,000/- for litigation costs.
On behalf of opposite party no. 3 i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. a written statement has been filed stating therein that the complainant’s animal i.e. cow died on 11.09.1995 while the premium of the cow was received on 12.09.1995 i.e. after death of the cattle. Hence the opposite party no. 3 has committed deficiency.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 a show cause has been filed stating therein that complainant is loanee of the bank and failed to liquidate the loan and when the bank requested for payment then only with intention to save skin has filed this case before this Forum after expiry of 13 years from the date of cause of action.
It is further stated that loan for purchasing the cattle was provided by the bank in year 1995 and this case has been filed in year 2009 i.e. after laps of 13 years.
It has been further stated that the cattle loan was sanctioned by the bank on the basis of recommendation of District Dairy development office, Patna belonging to the beneficiaries under “ Indira Awas Yojna ” and after its purchasing on 29.08.1995 the officials of the insurance company tagged the cattle and the premium amount of the said cattle was paid by the bank through bank draft being no. 095714/66/95-96 dated 07.09.1995.
It has been submitted that as the premium accepted by officials of the company or the company itself the policy came into force on the date when the requisite amount was paid and the insurance company is liable to settle the claim.
On behalf of the complainant a rejoinder to the show cause filed by opposite party no. 1 and 2 has been filed stating therein that the complainant preferred claim before the insurance company in prescribed form but the copy of the letter containing repudiation of the claim preferred by the complainant was not received.
It has been further stated in Para – 4 of aforesaid rejoinder that the draft was prepared on 07.09.1995 and the same was in the custody of the bank but the development officer or his representation did not come to receive it and hence on 09.09.1995 the draft have been sent through messenger to the bank.
We have narrated the facts asserted by the parties.
Firstly the learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 and 2 have stated that this case is not maintainable because the complainant has filed this case after 13 years of delay for which there is no limitation petition filed on behalf of complainant.
It is admitted fact that the loan was sanctioned in 1995 and the complainant has filed this case in 2009 after expiry of 13 years.
The only ground stated by the complainant in his rejoinder that his claim has never been repudiated by the opposite party no. 3. Opposite party no. 3 has stated that the aforesaid cattle died on 11.09.1995 while the premium was given on 12.09.1995 hence at the time of death there was no premium.
All these facts clearly states that the alleged occurrence has taken place in 1995 thus admittedly there is a limitation of 13 years.
The logic of the complainant that his claim was never repudiated as he has received nothing is not tenable because it was his duty to pursue the matter immediately but it appears from facts stated on Performa as well as written statement of opposite party no. 1 and 2 that when the bank took steps for realization of loan amount then this case has been filed.
For the discussion made above we find and hold that this case is not maintainable as the same has been filed after 13 years of cause of action for which there is no plausible explanation.
Accordingly this case stands dismissed for being hopelessly bared by limitation.
Member President
