Ld. Advocates are present. The matter of limitation is clarified. Judgement is ready. It is pronounced in open Commission in 6 pages 3 seperate sheet of papers.

BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the Complainant is permanently residing under the jurisdiction of this Commission and her address is described in the cause title. The Complainant is simple, illiterate & innocent and a peace loving citizen. Her  husband  Biswajit Adak S/O Late Jyotindra Adak Passed away on 29.08.2008 leaving a Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy (JPA policy for 5(five) years under the Branch Office of the New India Assurance Company Ltd bearing policy No. 512601/47/04/00036. The date of commencement of the said policy is on 10.01.2000 and after renewal of the said policy the effecting period of the said policy was from 28.01.2005 to 27.01.2010. The claimant and complainant is same person who is also the nominee of the deceased husband named Biswajit Adak, S/O- Late Jyotindra Adak. The life coverage of policy was Rs. 1,00,000/-.Her husband died on 29.08.2008 in a road accident by the lorry at Deulti More of N.H-6 in Bagnan P.S. under Howrah district. After death, the postmortem of the dead body was done in presence of Police and the doctor and then the dead body was handed over to her relatives. Owing to lack of ignorance and poverties complainant did not inform about the death of her deceased husband to the Insurance Office within the certain period. Moreover, complainant could not claim the death benefit of her husband as  elder brother of her husband named Sudarshan Adak snatched her valuable documents and tried to drive out her from own house & deprive of her right of property with help of other kith and kin. In this regard  a C.R. Case No. 829/2008 was initiated against Sudarshan Adak & 5 others by the complainant before the CJM , Purba Medinipur at Tamluk under the section of 498A & 406 of IPC and this case was deposed of on 09.08.2018.All the valid documents like policy deeds of LIC, Policy deed of GIC, postmortem report, Voter Card &Bank Pass book were kept  by the accused/defendant Sudarshan Adak& 5 others. After completing the said case, the accused/ Sudarshan Adak handed over the aforesaid valuable documents to complainant. After it, complainant went to the Sarat G.P. Office, Police Station, BDO office and Hospital to obtain her husband’s death certificate. Taking advantage of complainant’s illiteracy, ignorance and poverties all the houses played drake and darkle with her. Being failed complainant wandered madly and aimlessly from here and there. No one came to help her. At last, in the effort of a lawyer friend complainant obtained her husband’s death certificate on 08.01.2019 by delayed registration after performing proper enquiry by the Block Development Officer, Bagnan, Howrah District. The complainant went to the Branch/Divisional Office of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. At Khanjan Chowk, Haldia, Purba Medinipur to claim her husband’s death benefit. Then the insurance authority heard complainant’s facts on 14.01.2019 and also advised her that as death claim was not done within a certain period, nominee has to take steps lawfully. On that day complainant  requested again and again to receive application and unwillingly the Insurance Authority received  written application for the death benefit of her husband along with supporting documents. The Insurance Authority did not  give claim amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant. But the cause of action arose since 14.01.2019 i.e. within the period of limitation of two years. As such the complainant has prayed for directing the op to return the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 8% interest on sum assured amount for 11 years i.e. total amount of Rs. 88,000/-  and to  pay litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.

Notices were duly served upon the ops calling upon them to answer the complaint. The ops have resisted the claims of the complainant by filing a written version thereto. Succinctly put the contentions made can be delineated as follows: The OPs deny all the allegations contained in the complaint, except those are specifically admitted in this written version or otherwise dealt with, and nothing stated in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted merely because the same is not specifically traversed. It is also submitted that the cause of action of this case never arose on 14.01.2019 or at any point of time or at any place to initiate this case. The instant complaint is not maintainable within the purview/provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or by its implication. The Complainant having no cause of action to initiate the instant complaint, the same is liable to be rejected. The instant complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as per Sec 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 & Rule 14 of Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005. This Opp. Party most humbly submits that one Biswajit Adak happens to be the husband of the Nominee Mamata Adak availed one five year Janata personal Accident Insurance Policy on 28.01.2005 having the validity from 28.01.2005 to 27.01.2010 subject to the strict terms and conditions of Policy Certificate. Accordingly the terms of coverage of any risk over that Policy of Insurance expired a long ago on 27.01.2010. It was the prime condition of that Insurance Policy that in the event of any eventuality raising any claim over the said Policy must be intimated within a period of 14 days from such date of happening. But, in the present case the complainant for the first time sent a closed letter as was received in the office of the O.P. No.1 on 14.01.2018 with some enclosure which is after the lapses of about 9 years. 5 months with some flimsy grounds and also by suppressing the material facts. It is also the settled principle of law that the named nominee of any instrument is the person only to withdraw the money but he/she must ensure that all the legal heirs/claimants shall not be deprived from the benefits of that instrument by giving necessary security to that extent. The instant Consumer case being otherwise same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs to this O.P.

Points for determination are:

1.    Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?               

2.      Is the complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought   for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have given thoughtful consideration to rival submission of the Ld Counsel of the parties and appreciated the evidence and the documents filed by the parties.

It is the contention of the OP Insurance Company that the terms of coverage of the policy expired on 27.01.2010. But the Complainant submitted here the claim on 14.01.2019 after a long period of more than 9 years with some flimsy ground by suppressing the materials facts. It is the further contention of the ops are that the instant complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as per Sec 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 & Rule 14 of Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005.

So far the question of limitation is concerned, Section 24A of the Act of 1986 reads as under:

Limitation period. –(1) The District Forum, the 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.

Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in Sub-Section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complainant shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.N. Shrikhande V. Anita Sena Fernandes, VII (2010) SLT 648= IV (2010) CPJ27 (SC)=(2011) 1 SCC 53, has pointed out that the term ’cause of action’ has not been defined in the Act of 1986 and the same has to be interpreted keeping in view the context in which it has been used in Section 24A(1) and the object of the legislation.

In her complaint the complainant has described the reasons as to why she could not again put the claim in due time. She has stated that all the documents relating to this insurance claim along with other documents were in the possession of her relatives namely one Sudarsan Adak who was an accused in CR Case No. 829 of 2008 pending before the Ld. CJM Purba Medinipur. From annexure 15 it appears that she received the said documents upon a receipt in connection with said case on 09.08.2018 before 09.08.2018. The Complainant nominee had no scope to ascertain that she was shown as nominee in the policy issued by the Op No.1 vide policy No. 4751260100941; so she had no opportunity to lodge the claim before 09.08.2018. She received  the death certificate of her husband in June 2019. The cause of action is a bundle of facts. It appears that the complainant could lodge the claim only on 14.01.2019. After 14.01.2019 the OP remained silent or sat over the claim of the complainant without allowing or repudiating the same. So the cause of action should be treated from the said date. And she lodged the complaint on 12.07.2019 that is very much within two years from the date of cause of action. Even if we take any date before that date as cause of action, the complaint has been able to explain the cause for not taking any step or putting any claim before that date. The  nonobstant clause and proviso of section 24A of the C P Act 1986 which is consistent with section 69 of the C P Act 2019 provide for application of discretion in the sufficiently explained circumstances. So we think that the reason for delay if any has been sufficiently explained by the complainant. Therefore we held that the complaint does not fall within the mischief of section 24A of the C P Act 1986.

Now, the question remains to be answered as to whether there is any element of deficiency in service on the part of the ops. Let us examine the same in the facts and circumstances of this case.

As we are aware that the maxim ‘ignorantiajuris non-excusal’, or ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse,’ implies that the Court presumes that every party is aware of the law and hence cannot claim ignorance of the law as a defense to escape liability. This Latin maxim and its wide legal spillovers belong to the common law system.

The law of limitation finds its root in the maxims “ Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium” which means that in the interest of the state as a whole there should be a limit to litigation and “vigilantibus non dormientibus Jura subveniunt” which means the law will assist only those who are vigilant with their rights and not those who sleep upon it. The law of limitation specifies the statutory time frame within which a person may initiate a legal proceeding or a legal action can be brought. If a suit is filed after the expiry of the time prescribed it will be barred by the Limitation. It means that a suit brought before the Court after the expiry of the time within which a legal proceeding should’ve been initiated will be restricted.

Article 44(a) of the Limitation Act provides– On a policy of insurance when the sum insured is payable after proof of the death has been given to or received by the insurers. The limitation period is three years. It means that the period of limitation is three years for a suit on a policy of insurance when the Sum Assured is payable after proof of death has been given to or received by the insurers. The limitation runs from the date of death of the deceased, or where the claim on the policy is denied, either partly or wholly, the limitation starts from the date of such denial. On maturity of insurance policy, the period of limitation shall also be three years from the date of maturity.

Article 44(a) governs the period of limitation in case of death claims is three years and period will start from the date of death of the deceased or where claim on the policy is denied either partly or wholly the date of such denial. As two parts of the clause will have to be so construed as to be in harmony, the reasonable interpretation of the clause is that the latter part will not apply unless claim has been preferred  before expiry of the period prescribed by the first part namely three years from the date of death, when once the claim is so preferred  and the claim is denied, say at the end of four years, a fresh limitation will start from the date of denial. Here the complainant neither filed the claim within one month as provided in the rules and condition of the policy nor has preferred the claim before expiry of the period prescribed by the first part namely three years from the date of death of the insured. The claim has been preferred after more than 10 years of the death of the insured which is barred by limitation. As there is no deficiency on the part of the ops. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Both the points are decided accordingly.

Thus, the complaint case does not succeed.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That the CC/389 of 2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs. No order of costs is passed.

Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the complainant and the OPs free of cost.