The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Raichur V/S Kamalabai W/o. Late Malakanna Balde, Chitapur. - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/30

Kamalabai W/o. Late Malakanna Balde, Chitapur. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri. V.S. Zalki

23 Jul 2010

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/30

Kamalabai W/o. Late Malakanna Balde, Chitapur.						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Raichur The Branch Manager, LIC of India (CAB), Gulbarga						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. Sri. Basavaraj Sakri

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant Smt. Kamalabai against the opposite LIC of India U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite LIC of India to pay death claim amount of her husband, who was the policyholder from opposite LIC of India with interest and cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, she is the wife of late Malkanna Balde, her husband subscribed insurance policy for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- with death accidental benefit on 15-03-03. She is the nominee under the said policy, her husband paid upto date premium to LIC of India towards the said policy. But he died on 01-03-05 thereafter, she received premium intimation letter issued by opposite for to make the payment on or before 15-03-05 with grace period upto 15-04-05, her husband died with in that period. Therefore she approached opposite No-2 with claim application with necessary documents for to make payment of policy amount of Rs. 25,000/-. Opposite No-2 gave assurance for settling the claim at the earliest, she waited for some days for to complete the office formalities by the LIC. Therefore she once again approached the opposite No-1 for to settle her claim, but her claim was not settled by giving one or the other reasons. Lastly she issued legal notice dt. 02-04-10, opposites not settled her claim, as such she filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. 3. The opposites LIC of India appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed its written version by admitting the policy taken by the husband of complainant. It also admitted the fact that, the complainant is a nominee under the said policy. It further contended that, premium due towards the said policy from 15-09-04 by the life assured. Hence the policy is in lapsed condition from 15-09-04, as such nothing is payable to the complainant under the said policy. The same fact that was intimated to the complainant on 18-04-05 by the office of opposite No-1, there is no deficiency in its service and thereby it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether this complaint is barred by limitation. In view of section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint for alleged deficiency in service of opposite LIC of India.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) This complaint is barred by limitation. (2) In view of the finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in this complaint. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 6. The facts pleaded by the complainant in her complaint, points urged in her written arguments, affidavit-evidence and documents relied by her leads us to see as to whether this complaint is in time or whether it is barred by limitation U/sec. 24(a)(1) of C.P. Act. Admittedly opposite LIC not raised the point of limitation in its written version, in view of the fact, now we have to see as to whether this forum can decide the point of limitation with regard to filing of this complaint without any points raised by opposite in its written version. 7. For better appreciation and to understand the exact position of law, we have reproduced section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act, which reads as under: The District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Section 24(A)(II) is not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand for the reason that, the complainant not filed any application for to condone the delay U/section 24(A)(II) of C.P. Act. 8. In this regard we have referred some of rulings reported in: 1) AIR 2009 S.C. 2210 State Bank of India V/s. M/s. E.S. Agricultural Industries (I). 2) 2007 AIR SCW 4233 Gannamani Ansuya & Others V/s. Parvathi Amrinder Chowdary & Others. 3) 2010 (I) CPR 201 (NC) Rukmaniyamma & Others V/s. M/s. Kirloskar Investment Finance Ltd., and 4) AIR 1970 S.C. 716. 9. In the ruling cited at Sl.No-1, their lordships of the Honble Supreme Court held in reference to section 24(a)(1) of C.P. Act as: Expression shall not admit a complaint occurring section 24(A) is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own, whether complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed there under. As a matter of law the Consumer Forum must deal with complaint on merits only, if complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice U/section 24(A)(1) and give effect to it. If complaint is barred by time and yet the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality, therefore, as the aggrieved party would entitle to have such orders set aside. 10. Their lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in another decided case reported in AIR 1970 S.C. 716 and also in other rulings referred above it laid down a law by noting that, if complaint instituted after period of limitation, it is liable to be dismissed, even though limitation point not pleaded in written version. 11. Similar law laid down by their lordships in a case Rukmaniyamma & Others that, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act and to give the effect of it. 12. Keeping in view of the law laid down by their lordships with regard to limitation point U/section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. It is our duty to see as to whether this complaint is filed by the complainant is in time or whether it is barred by limitation U/section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. 13. Now coming to the facts of this case, date of the policy is 15-03-03, date of death of policyholder Malkanna Balde was on 01-03-05. This complaint is filed by the complainant on 27-04-10, all these facts are undisputed facts. 14. As per Ex.P-1 premium notice issued by opposite LIC to the husband of the complainant is dt. 15-03-05. As per the averments pleaded by the complainant in Para-5 to 7, she approached opposite LIC of India for to make the payment of policy amount on several occasions, she met personally for the first time on 18-04-05 and gave claim application along with necessary records. Thereafter she visited number of times personally and requested opposites to make the payment, but opposites not settled her claim, therefore she got issued legal notice on 02-04-10. The averments made in Para-4 to 7 are very much clear that, she personally approached opposite No- 1 & 2 for several times and ultimately she issued legal notice dt. 02-04-10. According to the complainant and as per the written arguments, the cause of action noted by her is on 02-04-10 which is the date of issuance of legal notice to opposite, Ex.P-4 letter of complainant dt. 13-05-05, Ex.P-5 another letter of her dt. 19-10-05 and Ex.P-6 another letter dt. 20-01-06 filed by her to say that opposites have not responded to these letters. No doubt there are endorsements for receipt of those letters by opposites, but Ex.P-8 another letter and Ex.P-9 Postal receipt filed by her to say that she issued another notice dt. 05-06-08 to the opposites, there is no acknowledgement regarding the receipt of Ex.P-8 by opposite LIC. Hence Ex.P-9 postal receipt not sufficient document to say that LIC of India has received Ex.P-8. 15. Keeping in view of the above referred documents, we are of the view that, the facts pleaded by the complainant in Para-5 to 7 of her complaint not discloses the issuance of these letters to LIC of India as on the dates mentioned in the said letters. The facts pleaded in her complaint in Para- 5 to 7 differs to the facts stated in her affidavit-evidence to prove the fact that Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-9 have been issued to LIC of India, there is a clear cut variance between the pleadings and proof. The facts pleaded are different and facts tried to prove through her affidavit-evidences and above referred documents are different, as such we have not taken note of these documents for to ascertain the exact date of cause of action arisen to her. 16. As admitted by the complainant herself, her husband died on 01-03-05 as per Ex.P-2, pleadings at Para-4 of the complaint, she approached LIC of India for the first time on 18-04-05 as per Ex.P-3, the endorsement given by LIC of India to produce original documents is also dt. 18-04-05. Therefore the cause of action arisen for the complainant was on 01-03-05, which is the date of death of policyholder Malkanna Balde. Even if, we accept the contention of the complainant as pleaded in Para-4 and document Ex.P-2, the cause of action arisen for her was on 18-04-05. Hence the complaint is filed beyond the limitation period of two years. Apart from the said fact even if, we accept the document Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-6 as those documents were acknowledged by the LIC of India and Ex.P-6 is the last letter acknowledged by the LIC of India is dt. 20-01-06, if we took this date as a cause of action for the complainant, then also this complaint is barred by limitation period of two years as this complaint was filed on 27-04-10. 17. The next point for our consideration is as to whether Ex.P-10 the legal notice dt. 07-04-10 issued by her will enlarges the two years period of limitation as required by section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. Keeping in view of the principles of the Honble Supreme Court in a case reported in 2009 (VII) SCC 768 Kandimalla Raghavayya and Company V/s. National Insurance Company not extending the period of limitation U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act., as such we are of the clear view that, the date of cause of action arisen for the complainant to file this complaint as on 02-04-10 is not correct, such legal notice Ex.P-10 not enlarges the period of limitation of two years as prescribed U/section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act, accordingly we are of the view that, this complaint is barred by limitation and thereby we answered Point No-1 accordingly. POINT NO.2:- 18. The complainant placed reliance on Ex.P-1 which is the premium intimation letter issued by opposite, we have gone through the contents of Ex.P-1 in which the last date for payment of premium was shown as 15-03-05. In the said intimation letter of LIC of India not mentioned that, premium not paid from 15-09-04 by the policyholder as contended in Para-2 of its written version. Hence we are not agreeing with the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposite LIC of India that the said policy lapsed from 15-09-04 itself. The unreported judgments submitted by the learned advocate for opposites in Appeal No. 2659/08 of the Honble State Commission and Revision Petition No. 242/06 of the National Commission, judgment in Appeal No. 2660/08 of the Honble State Commission differs to the facts of the present case on hand in view of the document Ex.P-1. 19. The learned advocate for complainant has submitted detail written arguments and also submitted two rulings reported in III 2009 CPJ 25 (NC) LIC of India and another V/s. Gowramma another case reported in (I) 2008 CPJ 39 (NC) Ressy Stephen V/s. LIC of India & another are similar to the facts of the present case on hand, but the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in her complaint, as her complaint is barred by limitation accordingly we answered Point No-2. POINT NO.3:- 20. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint is dismissed, as it is time barred U/section 24(A) (1) of C.P. Act. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 23-07-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant Smt. Kamalabai against the opposite LIC of India U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite LIC of India to pay death claim amount of her husband, who was the policyholder from opposite LIC of India with interest and cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, she is the wife of late Malkanna Balde, her husband subscribed insurance policy for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- with death accidental benefit on 15-03-03. She is the nominee under the said policy, her husband paid upto date premium to LIC of India towards the said policy. But he died on 01-03-05 thereafter, she received premium intimation letter issued by opposite for to make the payment on or before 15-03-05 with grace period upto 15-04-05, her husband died with in that period. Therefore she approached opposite No-2 with claim application with necessary documents for to make payment of policy amount of Rs. 25,000/-. Opposite No-2 gave assurance for settling the claim at the earliest, she waited for some days for to complete the office formalities by the LIC. Therefore she once again approached the opposite No-1 for to settle her claim, but her claim was not settled by giving one or the other reasons. Lastly she issued legal notice dt. 02-04-10, opposites not settled her claim, as such she filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. 3. The opposites LIC of India appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed its written version by admitting the policy taken by the husband of complainant. It also admitted the fact that, the complainant is a nominee under the said policy. It further contended that, premium due towards the said policy from 15-09-04 by the life assured. Hence the policy is in lapsed condition from 15-09-04, as such nothing is payable to the complainant under the said policy. The same fact that was intimated to the complainant on 18-04-05 by the office of opposite No-1, there is no deficiency in its service and thereby it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether this complaint is barred by limitation. In view of section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint for alleged deficiency in service of opposite LIC of India.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) This complaint is barred by limitation. (2) In view of the finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in this complaint. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 6. The facts pleaded by the complainant in her complaint, points urged in her written arguments, affidavit-evidence and documents relied by her leads us to see as to whether this complaint is in time or whether it is barred by limitation U/sec. 24(a)(1) of C.P. Act. Admittedly opposite LIC not raised the point of limitation in its written version, in view of the fact, now we have to see as to whether this forum can decide the point of limitation with regard to filing of this complaint without any points raised by opposite in its written version. 7. For better appreciation and to understand the exact position of law, we have reproduced section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act, which reads as under: The District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Section 24(A)(II) is not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand for the reason that, the complainant not filed any application for to condone the delay U/section 24(A)(II) of C.P. Act. 8. In this regard we have referred some of rulings reported in: 1) AIR 2009 S.C. 2210 State Bank of India V/s. M/s. E.S. Agricultural Industries (I). 2) 2007 AIR SCW 4233 Gannamani Ansuya & Others V/s. Parvathi Amrinder Chowdary & Others. 3) 2010 (I) CPR 201 (NC) Rukmaniyamma & Others V/s. M/s. Kirloskar Investment Finance Ltd., and 4) AIR 1970 S.C. 716. 9. In the ruling cited at Sl.No-1, their lordships of the Honble Supreme Court held in reference to section 24(a)(1) of C.P. Act as: Expression shall not admit a complaint occurring section 24(A) is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own, whether complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed there under. As a matter of law the Consumer Forum must deal with complaint on merits only, if complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice U/section 24(A)(1) and give effect to it. If complaint is barred by time and yet the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality, therefore, as the aggrieved party would entitle to have such orders set aside. 10. Their lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in another decided case reported in AIR 1970 S.C. 716 and also in other rulings referred above it laid down a law by noting that, if complaint instituted after period of limitation, it is liable to be dismissed, even though limitation point not pleaded in written version. 11. Similar law laid down by their lordships in a case Rukmaniyamma & Others that, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act and to give the effect of it. 12. Keeping in view of the law laid down by their lordships with regard to limitation point U/section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. It is our duty to see as to whether this complaint is filed by the complainant is in time or whether it is barred by limitation U/section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. 13. Now coming to the facts of this case, date of the policy is 15-03-03, date of death of policyholder Malkanna Balde was on 01-03-05. This complaint is filed by the complainant on 27-04-10, all these facts are undisputed facts. 14. As per Ex.P-1 premium notice issued by opposite LIC to the husband of the complainant is dt. 15-03-05. As per the averments pleaded by the complainant in Para-5 to 7, she approached opposite LIC of India for to make the payment of policy amount on several occasions, she met personally for the first time on 18-04-05 and gave claim application along with necessary records. Thereafter she visited number of times personally and requested opposites to make the payment, but opposites not settled her claim, therefore she got issued legal notice on 02-04-10. The averments made in Para-4 to 7 are very much clear that, she personally approached opposite No- 1 & 2 for several times and ultimately she issued legal notice dt. 02-04-10. According to the complainant and as per the written arguments, the cause of action noted by her is on 02-04-10 which is the date of issuance of legal notice to opposite, Ex.P-4 letter of complainant dt. 13-05-05, Ex.P-5 another letter of her dt. 19-10-05 and Ex.P-6 another letter dt. 20-01-06 filed by her to say that opposites have not responded to these letters. No doubt there are endorsements for receipt of those letters by opposites, but Ex.P-8 another letter and Ex.P-9 Postal receipt filed by her to say that she issued another notice dt. 05-06-08 to the opposites, there is no acknowledgement regarding the receipt of Ex.P-8 by opposite LIC. Hence Ex.P-9 postal receipt not sufficient document to say that LIC of India has received Ex.P-8. 15. Keeping in view of the above referred documents, we are of the view that, the facts pleaded by the complainant in Para-5 to 7 of her complaint not discloses the issuance of these letters to LIC of India as on the dates mentioned in the said letters. The facts pleaded in her complaint in Para- 5 to 7 differs to the facts stated in her affidavit-evidence to prove the fact that Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-9 have been issued to LIC of India, there is a clear cut variance between the pleadings and proof. The facts pleaded are different and facts tried to prove through her affidavit-evidences and above referred documents are different, as such we have not taken note of these documents for to ascertain the exact date of cause of action arisen to her. 16. As admitted by the complainant herself, her husband died on 01-03-05 as per Ex.P-2, pleadings at Para-4 of the complaint, she approached LIC of India for the first time on 18-04-05 as per Ex.P-3, the endorsement given by LIC of India to produce original documents is also dt. 18-04-05. Therefore the cause of action arisen for the complainant was on 01-03-05, which is the date of death of policyholder Malkanna Balde. Even if, we accept the contention of the complainant as pleaded in Para-4 and document Ex.P-2, the cause of action arisen for her was on 18-04-05. Hence the complaint is filed beyond the limitation period of two years. Apart from the said fact even if, we accept the document Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-6 as those documents were acknowledged by the LIC of India and Ex.P-6 is the last letter acknowledged by the LIC of India is dt. 20-01-06, if we took this date as a cause of action for the complainant, then also this complaint is barred by limitation period of two years as this complaint was filed on 27-04-10. 17. The next point for our consideration is as to whether Ex.P-10 the legal notice dt. 07-04-10 issued by her will enlarges the two years period of limitation as required by section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. Keeping in view of the principles of the Honble Supreme Court in a case reported in 2009 (VII) SCC 768 Kandimalla Raghavayya and Company V/s. National Insurance Company not extending the period of limitation U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act., as such we are of the clear view that, the date of cause of action arisen for the complainant to file this complaint as on 02-04-10 is not correct, such legal notice Ex.P-10 not enlarges the period of limitation of two years as prescribed U/section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act, accordingly we are of the view that, this complaint is barred by limitation and thereby we answered Point No-1 accordingly. POINT NO.2:- 18. The complainant placed reliance on Ex.P-1 which is the premium intimation letter issued by opposite, we have gone through the contents of Ex.P-1 in which the last date for payment of premium was shown as 15-03-05. In the said intimation letter of LIC of India not mentioned that, premium not paid from 15-09-04 by the policyholder as contended in Para-2 of its written version. Hence we are not agreeing with the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposite LIC of India that the said policy lapsed from 15-09-04 itself. The unreported judgments submitted by the learned advocate for opposites in Appeal No. 2659/08 of the Honble State Commission and Revision Petition No. 242/06 of the National Commission, judgment in Appeal No. 2660/08 of the Honble State Commission differs to the facts of the present case on hand in view of the document Ex.P-1. 19. The learned advocate for complainant has submitted detail written arguments and also submitted two rulings reported in III 2009 CPJ 25 (NC) LIC of India and another V/s. Gowramma another case reported in (I) 2008 CPJ 39 (NC) Ressy Stephen V/s. LIC of India & another are similar to the facts of the present case on hand, but the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in her complaint, as her complaint is barred by limitation accordingly we answered Point No-2. POINT NO.3:- 20. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint is dismissed, as it is time barred U/section 24(A) (1) of C.P. Act. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 23-07-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.