Karnataka

Kolar

CC/68/2019

Smt.Saraswathamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

23 Dec 2019

ORDER

Date of Filing: 03.12.2019

Date of Disposal: 21.12.2019

 

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 21^st DAY OF DECEMBER 2019

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

C.C.NO.68 OF 2019

Smt. Saraswathamma,

W/o. Late. Krishnappa,

Aged Abut 56 Years,

Yeldur Village & Hobli,

Srinivaspur Taluk, Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri. B. Kumar, Advocate)                                               ….  Complainant.

- V/s -

1) The Branch Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kolar Branch,

Dr. Rajkumar Road,

Kolar City.

 

2) The Divisional Manager,

L.I.C of India,

Divisional Office-II,

Jeevan Jyothi Building,

Indiranagar II Stage,

Bangalore-560 038.                                               ….. Opposite Parties.

:: ORDER ON MAINTAINABALITY OF THE CONSUMER COMPLAINT ::

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT,

01.   The complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint against OPs and prays to direct the OPs to pay all the death benefits including the Double accident benefit amount of Rs.50,000/-, vested bonus of Rs.50,000/-, compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, court cost and conveyance charges and miscellaneous charges of Rs.10,000/-, in all Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum till realization of the amount and allow the complaint.

02.   The complainant has filed this complaint on 03.12.2019 and posted to 05.12.2019 for hearing on admission.  Since from that date in spite of giving sufficient time neither the complainant nor the counsel for the complainant were appeared before the Forum to address argument and are not addressed arguments on maintainability of the case.

03.   The complainant has stated that, her husband by name Krishnappa was the life insured vide policy No.611037856 for sum assured of Rs.25,000/- on monthly premium of Rs.166/-.  The date of commencement of the policy is on 28.12.1992 and the complainant is the nominee of the said policy.  The husband of the complainant was working as Guard at Forest Department.  The Range Forest Officer, Srinivasapura, has issued letter dated: 08.07.1994 stating that, the premium amount has been remitted till 30.05.1993 from his salary.  The husband of the complainant was died due to ill-health on 14.06.1993 while he was in service and the nominee is entitled for all the benefits including the death benefit etc.,.  The said policy covered with double accident benefit.  The OPs rejected the claim of the complainant.  On 21.03.2019 the complainant issued legal notice through counsel and thereafter filed this Consumer Complaint before this Forum.

04.   On perusal of the above said facts of the complainant case and the documents produced by the complainant i.e., the copy of the policy it is no doubt true that, the complainant is the nominee of the policy vide policy No.611037856, dated: 28.12.1992.  The complainant’s husband was working as a Guard at Forest Department and he has taken the said policy and paying the monthly premium of Rs.166/-.  The complainant has stated that, her husband by name Krishnappa was died on 14.06.1993 and produced copy of death certificate.  At this juncture it is relevant to state here that, the Consumer Complaint is to be filed within two years from the date of cause of action as contemplated Under Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Taking in to consideration of the said fact of death of Krishnappa the complaint is to be filed on or before 14.06.1995, but the complainant has filed this complaint on 03.12.2019 after lapse of 24 years 05 months 19 days and the said complaint is hopelessly barred by law of limitation.  Mere issuing of legal notice against OPs does not give raise fresh cause of action.

05.   Hence under these circumstances, as discussed above, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as it is hopelessly barred by law of limitation.  Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as not maintainable.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 21^st DAY OF DECEMBER 2019)

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT