BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

COMPLAINT NO.07/2017

DATE OF FILING: 16/01/2017
 

ORDER DATED: 20^th day of September, 2017

   P r e  s e n t: 

01) Smt. Sharada. K.                                                  President…

     B.A.LL.B. (Spl) 

02) Smt. Sumangala.C.Hadli.                            Lady Member…

                            B.A (Music)

                V/s

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SHARADA.K.PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred in short as OP) for seeking direction to pay sum assured of Rs.25,000/- and vested bonus of Rs.21,716/- with interest from the date of maturity to the complainant till realization, Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony, Rs.20,000/- for cost of the Complaint.

2.    The brief fact of the case are as follows:

The complainant is retired Head Master of the Government High School, Belagal Peth, Tq: Hanagal, Dist: Dharwad during the year 1973-1974, complainant obtained an anticipated endowment policy bearing No.040245152 at the age of 38 years. The said policy matured on 08/1993 and monthly premium of Rs.124.40 were regularly directly deducted from salary and credited to OP.

2.     After maturity of the policy bond, it was sent to the LIC-Branch Office, Jamakhandi through Sri.Sadashiv Venkappa Bisaraddi clerk of Raddi Bank, Mudhol during April 1994. It was accepted by the Office, but payment was not made by cheque to credit the complainant’s Account at Raddi Bank Branch, Mudhol, or S.B.I. branch, Mudhol. After the maturity, complainant’s son enquired about the said policy, the OP has argued that there is no information for the policy amount paid namely matured amount and vested bonus of Rs.20,716/-. The complainant obtained the said policy bond on 28.08.1973 at that time age of 38 years. Since my date of birth is 08.09.1935, but the date of birth is wrongly entered as 01.07.1956. It is ever possible that a person at the age of 17 years to be the Head Maser of the Government High School. It is clear that OP has not maintained the records properly. The complainant has submitted requisition on 08.09.2016, 17.11.2016 and 18.11.2016, but there was no response from OP side. After receipt of the notice, till today OP has not settle the claim of the complainant. Hence, complainant has filed the present Complaint against OP to settle the claim of the complainant and other reliefs.

3.      After receipt of notice, OP appeared through his counsel and filed Written Version. It is contended that OP denies all the averments made in the Complaint are false, frivolous as such deserves to be dismissed. OP contended that the maturity claim of the complainant under this Policy was already settled by the OP in the year 1993 only for sum assured with vested bonus as on the date of maturity. But, in this case in the year 1993 the maturity claim settlement was done manually and provision of recording the same in computer system was not available in the year 1993. OP also contended that after having received the Policy Bond and the Discharge Form from the complainant, accordingly thee present OP had settled the claim under this policy in the year 1993 after obtaining the above said requirement. But, even then the claim of the complainant was settled in the year 1993, again the complainant is claiming the claim of is policy bond. The complainant stated in this Complaint that this OP has issued status report dated; 16.03.2016 of the said policy. It is clearly stated in the report that there is no information for the policy amount paid. But, the complainant has misunderstood about the status report issued by the OP. Even though the payment paid particulars are destroyed after five years of the maturity, as per the policy servicing manual of the Corporation. On this basis only, the complainant demanding for settlement of maturity claim with bonus without producing original policy bond, even then OP had already settled the claim of the complainant in the year 1993.

4.      Moreover, this Complaint is barred by limitation. The claim of policy of the complainant was matured in the year of 1993 and settled the paid to the complainant along with vested bonus in the year of 1993. But, whereas this present complainant has filed this Complaint on 13.01.2017, this is after the gap of 24 years and complainant did not filed any delay of condonation application also. Hence, it is humbly submitted that this Complaint is barred by limitation and hence this Complaint is deserved to be dismissed as barred by limitation.     

5.      The complainant tendered affidavit evidence and filed documents in support of his case. OP filed affidavit evidence. The OP has filed Written Arguments. After considering the material placed on record, the following points that arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the OP proved that present Complaint time barred one?

2. What order?

          After considering the arguments advanced by the complainant and learned counsel for OP and the material evidence placed on record, our findings for the above points are as follows;

1. Affirmative,
2. As per final order;

-: R E A S O N S :-

6.  POINT NO.1:- The complainant was serving as Head Master of the Government High School, Belagal Peth, Tq: Hanagal, Dist: Dharwad during the year 1973-74 he obtained an anticipated endowment policy bearing No. 040245152 at age of 38 years. The said policy was maturity in the year 1993. Moreover, this complaint is barred by limitation. Claim of the policy of the complainant was matured in the year of 1993, but whereas the present Complaint has filed on 13.01.2017 i.e. after the gap of 24 years.

Section 24 (A) of Consumer Protection Act,, the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission shall not admit and Complaint unless, it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.    

1. In  (2016) CPJ 190 (NC) Janasatta Sahakari Awaj Samiti Ltd., V/s Kone Elevators India Pvt. Ltd. and another
2. 2015 CPR Page 50 NC Punjab State Warehousing Corporation V/s United India Company Ltd.,
3. 2014 (2) CPR Page 618 NC (Time barred Complaint/Appeal cannot be entertained)

There is no application for delay of condonation. These Complaints are barred by limitation u/s 24 (A) of Limitation Act.

The District Forum carefully consider the above said points, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.   

7.  POINT NO.2:  In view of affirmative finding to Point No.1, we proceed to pass the following:

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is barred by limitation u/s 24 (A) of Limitation Act, consequently Complaint u/s 12 of C.P. Act is dismissed.
2. Parties are bear their own costs.  
3.  Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.  

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 20^th day of September, 2017)