IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
Dated this the 9th Day of May 2022
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
IA No.19/2020
IN
CC.154/2019
The Manager : Petitioner/Opposite party
TATA AIA Life Insurance Co.Ltd.
Varinjam Towers,
Chinnakkada, Kollam.
[By Adv.Saji Isaac.K.J]
V/s
Jayaprakash.S : Respondent/Complainant
S/o Sreedhara Panicker
VI/1007
Punartham, Asramom P.O
Kollam.
[S.Harikumar]
FINAL ORDER
E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President
This is a petition filed on behalf of the opposite party in CC.154/19 praying to hear the question of maintainability as preliminary issue and to dismiss/reject the complaint. In support of the petition the legal officer of the opposite party filed affidavit by swearing that the complaint is barred by law of limitation and is liable to be dismissed in limine, that the policy availed by the complainant commenced on 26.05.2008 and there was default of payment of premium after 26.05.2009 . The complaint has been filed after 10 years and hence the same is hopelessly barred by limitation.
The respondent who is the original complainant has filed an objection contenting that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is not barred by limitation. However the respondent would admit that he had joined the policy on 26.05.2008 and 1st premium was paid on that day and the 2nd premium was paid on 26.05.2009 respectively as instructed and as assured by the opposite party. While the complainant went to the office to make payment of the 3rd installment he was told certain conditions which were not disclosed at the time of joining the policy. However at that time the opposite party/petitioner here informed the complainant that he would get pensionery benefit from 2017 onwards. So he did not made any complaint about the cheating. However when he again approached at the office of the opposite party during December 2017 they evaded by stating lame excuses and found the company colluded with broker and played tricks to obtain unlawful monitory advantage which is a clear unfair trade practice played by the opposite party. So he compelled to file this complaint during June 2019 after issuing notice on 05.02.2019 . The above facts are clearly stated in Paragraph 3&4 of the complaint. In paragraph 6 of the complaint it is stated that the cause of action has been started during December 2017 when the complainant came to know that it was a pension scheme. In the circumstances the complaint is maintainable and the respondent further pray to dismiss the maintainability petition.
In view of the above pleadings the point that arise for consideration is:-
Whether the original complaint is barred by limitation.
Heard both sides and perused the records.
The points
Even according to the original complainant he joined the policy with opposite party on 26.05.2008 and paid the 1st installment Rs.49947/- on that day. The policy Number is C.390082864. He had also paid the 2nd installment during the year 2009. According to the complainant he was compelled to join the policy by mis representing facts by the agent of the opposite party. The said agent made the complainant to believe that after remitting 3 premiums in 3 years period the complainant would get an amount with its increased value after a period of 5 years. The said agent never told the complainant after remitting 55 yearly installments the policy would become mature during the year 2023. If that fact was made known he would not have joined the policy. According to the complainant the suppression of material facts is a vitiating circumstances and hence the contract has become void. It is further alleged that by believing the words of the agent, he did not read the policy conditions when it was received after some months later. However it is clear from the available materials that when the complainant went to remit the 3rd installment he realize the terms and conditions of the policy from the opposite party and the opposite party informed him that he would get only pensionery benefit and he would not get the amount remitted even after 5 years. So he did not pay the 3rd installment.
In view of the above pleadings in paragraph 3 of the complaint it is crystal clear that the complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy when the complainant approached the office of the opposite party/the petitioner here during the 3rd year of the policy itself, when he went to pay the 3rd installment. The 3rd year of the policy is 2010. Even if the entire case of the complainant is believed in toto the cause of action started from the year 2010 onwards. The period prescribed in filing the complainant is 2 years from the date of starting the cause of action and thereafter the complaint is barred by limitation.
It is further to be pointed out that though the complainant/respondent saddle the entire responsibility of misrepresenting facts on the agent the name and address or any other details of the agent is not stated either in the complaint or in the objection of this I.A.
In view of the materials available on record which are pointed out above we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore the IA is only to be allowed and the complaint is dismissed in limini as prayed for in the IA. The point answered accordingly.
In the result IA stands allowed and the complaint stands dismissed being barred by limitation.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 9th day of May 2022.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
