BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 77/2012.
THIS THE 14th DAY OF DECEMBER 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa, B.A.LLB. MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Monika D/o.late Kariyappa, Age: 30
years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Hosakera, Tq. Gngavathi, Dist: Koppal.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- The Manager, LIC of India, Branch Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur.
CLAIM :- For to direct the opposite Insurance Company
to pay policy amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest and compensation amount and cost.
Date of institution :- 11-09-12.
Notice served :- 26-09-12.
Date of disposal :- 14-12-12.
Complainant represented by Miss. Radha. S.A, Advocate.
Respondent represented by Sri. T.Keshavacharya, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
ORDER ON IA DT. 11-09-2012 FILED BY COMPLAINANT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant Smt. Monika against LIC of India, Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, for to direct the opposite Insurance Company to pay policy amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest and compensation amount and cost. IA-1 is filed by the complainant U/sec. 5 of Limitation Act for to condone the delay of one year two months and nine days in filing this complaint, for the reasons stated in the affidavit annexed to this petition.
2. The brief facts of this petition are that, Opposite Insurance Company assured her for settling the matter to pay the policy amount, but it dragged on without settling her claim. She requested, but intentionally it was postponed. Hence, there was a delay of one year two months and nine days in filing this complaint and prayed for to condone the said delay.
3. Opposite Insurance Company appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed objection to this petition by contending that, the claim of petition was repudiated by LIC and it was communicated through letter dt. 26-03-2009 by RPAD, there was a delay of 1250 days, that means three years five months and fifteen days in filing this complaint, no proper, sufficient reasons not shown for to condone such abnormal delay. Hence, it prayed for to dismiss IA-1 and also prayed for to dismiss the complaint as it is time barred complaint.
4. In view of the contentions and rival contentions of the parties of this petition. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant has made out proper, sufficient and good grounds to condone the delay of one year two months nine days as contended by her in this petition..
2. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In Negative.
(2) In view of the finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following:
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
6. This petition is filed U/sec. 5 of Limitation Act, even though there is specific provision 24(a)(2) of C.P. Act. However, we have taken note of the reasons stated by the complainant in her affidavit annexed to this petition. According to para-2 of the affidavit, it is stated by her that, she did not file her complaint well within time on good belief on the words of opposite that, it is going to settle the claim. It is only one reason stated by her for to condone the abnormal delay caused in filing this complaint. According to complainant there is a delay of one year two months and nine days without disclosing from which date she calculated the period of delay of one year two months and nine days. She also not disclosed the date of cause of action which accrued to her to file Consumer Complaint. However the affidavit of opposite LIC Company discloses the date of repudiation her claim by its letter dt. 26-03-2009.
8. By looking into the facts and circumstances of this case, the cause of action accrues to her from the date of communication repudiation letter dt. 26-03-2009. Complainant might have not disclosed such fact in her affidavit only with an intention to say that, there was a delay of one year two months and nine days only.
10. The ground urged in affidavit filed along with this petition is not a good ground to condone such abnormal delay. The say of the complainant that, she kept silent on good faith that, opposite LIC is going to settle the claim or issuance of legal notice by her at later stage are not good grounds to condone such abnormal delay of either one year two months nine days or three years five months fifteen days. Hence this application is liable for dismissal. Accordingly we answered Point No-1 in Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
11. In-view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
IA-1 filed by the complainant dt. 11-09-2012 U/Sec. 5 of Limitation Act is dismissed.
Consequently complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as it is time barred.
Intimate the complainant accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 14-12-12)
Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
RK*
