The MD Hutti Gold Mines Pvt. Co. Ltd V/S Smt.Seetamma W/o Late Thippanna - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/08/40

Smt.Seetamma W/o Late Thippanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

The MD Hutti Gold Mines Pvt. Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

T.M.Swamy

29 Jan 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/40

Smt.Seetamma W/o Late Thippanna						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The MD Hutti Gold Mines Pvt. Co. Ltd The Branch Manager						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

1. Smt.Seetamma W/o Late Thippanna

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. T.M.Swamy

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

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

By Sri. Gururaj Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Smt. Seetamma against Respondents-(1) The General Manager, Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti and (2) Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Branch Office, Sindhanur,. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: Complainant is the wife of late Thispanna S/o. Lachamanna who was an employee working under the control and employment of Respondent No-1. During his service late Thipanna had opted five LIC policies bearing No. 66101815 dt. 28-10-98 for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- (2) 661160539 dt. 28-01-91 for assured sum of Rs. 10,000/- (3) 661196326 dt. 28-03-96 for assured sum of Rs. 20,000/- (4) 661196869 dt. 27-07-96 for assured sum of Rs. 14,000/- and (5) 661208915 dt. 15-02-96 for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- under Salary Saving Scheme. As per the Salary Saving Scheme the Respondent No-1 was making the payment of premium amount of the policy to Respondent NO-2 directly out of salary amount of the said Thipanna the late husband of the complainant. The late Thipanna died on 10-05-2003 leaving behind him the complainant who is the legal heir and nominee to the said life assured. As such the complainant is entitled to receive the said amount. After the death of her husband Thipanna, the complainant made requests to Respondent NO-2 by submitting all the original policies through Respondent No-2s agent by name Shivanada in accompany with her elder brother Gopu Naik. But even in-spite of several requests and submission of all relevant documents the claim was not settled. The Respondent No-2 went on dragging the matter by saying that the corresponding file of the complainant is mis-placed and would take proper steps towards proceedings of claim. But Respondent NO-2 did not keep up the word of their own hence the complainant approached her counsel in the month of January-2008 for following up of the matter. The complainant further contended that the said counsel for complainant submitted application dt. 28-01-08 along with earlier corresponding papers under R.T.I. Act 2005. The Respondent No-2 replied to the said letter by denying the say of the complainant about submission of documents. So the complainant once again applied for the same on 22-08-08 for this the Respondent NO-2 furnished policy status report and it is also made it clear that the policies have not repudiated till the day since the year 2003 i.e, from submission of original policies for claim which is nothing but deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice in the eyes of law. It is further contended that on perusal of policy status report furnished by the Respondent No-2 it is found that all the policies have been lapsed due to non-payment of premiums out of the deceased salary or for non-intimating to late Thipanna in-writing during the service period and life-time by the Respondent NO-1 to make own arrangements towards payment of premium of policies to the Respondent No-2. So failure in-discharging proper duties by the Respondent NO-1 leads to lapsing of policies and made monetary loss, hardship and inconvenience to the deceased and complainant for which Respondent No-1 & 2 are liable to compensate the complainant. The Respondent NO-2 being insurer failed to discharge his duty in collecting the premium from Respondent No-1, therefore the Respondent NO-2 alone would be liable for compensate the complainant. The complainant got issued Legal Notice to the Respondents to pay the policy amount. The said notice was served upon the Respondents. However the Respondent No-2 ultimately repudiated the claim of the complainant through letter dt. 30-05-08. For this complainant sought direction against the Respondents to pay the death benefits under five policies along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 10-05-2003 to till realization with cost of the proceedings. 2. The Respondents 1 & 2 appeared through their respective counsel and have filed their written version. The Respondent No-1 Managing Director, Hutti Gold Mines Ltd., has filed written version contending that the late Thipanna the husband of the complainant was employed under the Respondent No-1 Corporation. He had opted for voluntarily retirement on 25-08-98 thereafter he died on 10-05-03. This Respondent No-2 has regularly remitted the premium of late Thipanna to the LIC whenever his wages were sufficient. Thereafter due to non-availability of the sufficient wages of said Thipanna to pay the premium, the premium could not be remitted to the LIC. That the said fact was being regularly informed by the Respondent No-1 to late Thipanna and also he had knowledge of non-payment of premium when he took his monthly wage slip. This Respondent NO-1 could not deduct the Insurance premium from the salary of said employee because his earnings during his service till August 1998 were not enough to recover the LIC premium which stands at Clause-1 at Sub-clause (2) of section 7 of Payment of Wages Act, because the deductions are to be made on the basis of priority as per the provisions of law. Therefore the non-payment of premium of said employee by deducting from his salary did not fall in the order of priority. Hence Respondent No-1 is neither negligent nor violated any alleged undertaking claim to LIC. So he is not liable to damages and compensation as claimed. It is further contended that as the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India that non-payment of premium by the employer collecting from the employees salary does not absolute LIC to pay the policy amount and even other wise in the entire complaint no specific allegations have been made against this Respondent NO-1 as such they have sought for dismissal of complaint of the complainant with cost. 3. The Respondent Insurance Company in the written version has contended that late Thipanna has died on 10-05-2003 but it was intimated to this Respondent NO-2 only in the month of January-2008 through Lawyers Notice and no claim is submitted by the nominee or the present complainant, under these circumstances the claim is time barred and apart from this, the policies or all in lapsed condition and according to rules nothing is payable to the nominee or to anybody including the complainant claiming under these policies. This Respondent No-2 further contended that the policy No. 661071845 dt. 28-10-91 and 661760539 28-01-91 held by the deceased are surrendered during his life-time only and the remaining three policies i.e, 661196326 dt. 28-03-96 is in lapsed condition from first unpaid premium for the month of August-1998 similarly 661196869 dt. 27-07-96 and 661208915 dt. 15-02-96 these two policies are in lapsed condition from first unpaid premium for the month of September-1998. The first above said two policies have been surrendered by the late Thipanna during his life time and remaining three policies have been lapsed due to non-payment of premium and accordingly they acquire no value to pay anything under them. So nothing is payable by this Respondent therefore the allegations made in this extent by the complainant are all false and baseless. Hence for all these reasons the Respondent No-2 has sought for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and also filed affidavit of one Sharanappa as PW-2 in support of her case. In-rebuttal the Executive Director of Hutti Gold Mines has filed sworn affidavit of Respondent No-1 by way of examination-in-chief as RW-1. Similarly the Assistant Administrative Officer of Respondent No-2 Corporation has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as RW-2. On behalf of complainant (14) documents were got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14. On behalf of the Respondent No-1 has not produced any document to be marked. The Respondent No-2 (5) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 were got marked. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents, as alleged. 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for. 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Negative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that late Thipanna was an employee working under Respondent NO-1 and he had taken five Insurance Policies in-question under Salary Saving Scheme and this Thipanna died on 10-05-2003 and that the present complainant is the nominee of the life assured. 8. Respondent NO-1 Hutti Gold Mines in their written version have stated that they have regularly remitted the premium of employee-late Thipanna to the LIC whenever his wages were sufficient. Thereafter due to non-availability of sufficient wages of the said Thipanna to pay the premium, the premium could not be remitted to the LIC and this fact was being regularly informed to late Thipanna and he had also knowledge of non-payment of premium when he took his monthly wage slip. Thereafter the Respondent NO-1 in Para- 3 of the written version contended that the late Thipanna had opted for voluntarily retirement on 25-08-1998 and after his voluntary retirement he died on 10-05-2003. This contention of the Respondent NO-1 is clearly goes to show that the late Thipanna was died after his voluntary retirement from this Respondent NO-1 Company and after lapse of five years he has died. This fact explains that at the time of his death he was not in service. For this there is no evidence by the complainant/rebutting this fact nor she has denied the same. Under these circumstances question of deducting the premium by this Respondent from the salary of late Thipanna from 15-08-1998 onwards does not arise. From the day of his retirement salary saving scheme comes to an end and. Similarly the relationship between the Respondent No-1 & 2 and of late Thipanna in-respect of salary saving scheme also comes to an end. From the close perusal of the complaint pleading of the complainant and documents we do not find any substance regarding payment of premium from the date of his voluntary retirement to his date of death by the late Thipanna from his own pocket for which he was supposed to pay premium to keep alive the policies in-question. The Ex.P-5 is the letter of Respondent No-2 addressed to CRM LIC Divisional Office, Raichur. In this letter it is clearly shown that the life assured late Thipanna has surrendered the two policy Nos. 661071845 & 661160539 and lapsing of the remaining three policies i.e, 661196326, 661196869, and 661208945. Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 are status report of the two policies surrender by late Thipanna. Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10 are status report of remaining three policies showing the lapsing of each policy owing to non-payment of policy premium from August 1998 and September 1998 respectively. Admittedly late Thipanna had taken voluntary retirement on 25-08-98 and died on 10-05-2003 so to say he was alive for more than (5) years from his retirement. When he has not paid any premium during these five years automatically the policies have been lapsed as seen from the status of policy filed at Ex.P-8 = Ex.R-3, Ex.P-9 = Ex.R-4 and Ex.P-10 = Ex.R-5. For this the Respondent No-2 cannot be blamed since the reason for lapsing the policies is the mistake/negligence of late Thipanna only. This is nothing but digging a grave by Thipanna himself. Therefore we do not find any wrong with the Respondent NO-2 regarding repudiating the policies as shown in Ex.P-12. 9. The Respondent NO-2 in his written version at Para-3 contended that, late Thipanna has died on 10-05-2003 but it was intimated to this Respondent only in the month of January-2008 through Advocate and no claim is submitted by the nominee or the present complainant under these circumstances the claim is time barred. Admittedly the late Thipanna has died on 10-05-2003 as per the Ex.P-1 death certificate produced by the complainant. The complainant submitted an application vide Ex.P-2 under R.T.I. Act on 28-01-2008 seeking copies of correspondence and documents pertaining to (5) policies of her late husband. This fact very clearly goes to show that the complainant came to know her claim in the policy only after lapse of five years after the death of her husband. So undoubtedly it is time barred only as contended by the Respondent No-2. Except this Ex.P-2 there is absolutely no other documents by the complainant to defeat the contention of the Respondent NO-2 as her claim is time barred. Of course the complainant in order to establish her case has filed her evidence along with supporting witness by name Sharanappa as PW-2 stating that she made several correspondence with the Respondent NO-2 in order to get benefits under the policies in question and the Respondent NO-2 did not settle the claim and stated that the corresponding file has been mis-placed and assured that they would take proper steps in tracing the file and processing her claim, but in-vain. Her witness PW-2 Sharanappa in his affidavit-evidence has stated that about few years back he has gone to the Respondent NO-2 office at Sindhanoor along with complainant and her brother and the concerned officials told that file of Seetamma has been mis-placed and they are not definite whether it has been sent to Divisional Office Raichur or not and they assured that they would make possible best efforts to trace out the file however not any steps were taken to settle the claim of the complainant. In order to substantiate these statements the complainant has not produced any scrap of document. When she has not produced any documents that itself goes to shows that neither the complainant nor the PW-2 approached the Respondent NO-2 and submitted their claim as contended in their complaint and evidence. Under these circumstances we have no other go then to dis-believe the evidence of the complainant and PW-2. Thus we cannot hold that the complainant has put forth her claim before the Respondent NO-2 in time and it clearly goes to show that for the first time in the year 2008 itself straight away the complainant approached to the Respondent NO-2 after lapse of five years from the date of death of late Thipanna. Similarly if we take it from the date of retirement of the late Thipanna it is more than 8 to 9 years. Hence the claim of the complainant is time barred as contended by the Respondents. Viewing from all angles the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable under any circumstances. Hence we hold that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed both on merits and limitation, hence we do not find any deficiency on the part of Respondent No-1 & 2 as contended by the complainant. Therefore Point NO-1 is answered in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 10. In view of our discussion and findings on Point NO-1, holding that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service by the Respondents so he is not entitled for reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-01-09) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

By Sri. Gururaj Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Smt. Seetamma against Respondents-(1) The General Manager, Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti and (2) Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Branch Office, Sindhanur,. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: Complainant is the wife of late Thispanna S/o. Lachamanna who was an employee working under the control and employment of Respondent No-1. During his service late Thipanna had opted five LIC policies bearing No. 66101815 dt. 28-10-98 for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- (2) 661160539 dt. 28-01-91 for assured sum of Rs. 10,000/- (3) 661196326 dt. 28-03-96 for assured sum of Rs. 20,000/- (4) 661196869 dt. 27-07-96 for assured sum of Rs. 14,000/- and (5) 661208915 dt. 15-02-96 for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- under Salary Saving Scheme. As per the Salary Saving Scheme the Respondent No-1 was making the payment of premium amount of the policy to Respondent NO-2 directly out of salary amount of the said Thipanna the late husband of the complainant. The late Thipanna died on 10-05-2003 leaving behind him the complainant who is the legal heir and nominee to the said life assured. As such the complainant is entitled to receive the said amount. After the death of her husband Thipanna, the complainant made requests to Respondent NO-2 by submitting all the original policies through Respondent No-2s agent by name Shivanada in accompany with her elder brother Gopu Naik. But even in-spite of several requests and submission of all relevant documents the claim was not settled. The Respondent No-2 went on dragging the matter by saying that the corresponding file of the complainant is mis-placed and would take proper steps towards proceedings of claim. But Respondent NO-2 did not keep up the word of their own hence the complainant approached her counsel in the month of January-2008 for following up of the matter. The complainant further contended that the said counsel for complainant submitted application dt. 28-01-08 along with earlier corresponding papers under R.T.I. Act 2005. The Respondent No-2 replied to the said letter by denying the say of the complainant about submission of documents. So the complainant once again applied for the same on 22-08-08 for this the Respondent NO-2 furnished policy status report and it is also made it clear that the policies have not repudiated till the day since the year 2003 i.e, from submission of original policies for claim which is nothing but deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice in the eyes of law. It is further contended that on perusal of policy status report furnished by the Respondent No-2 it is found that all the policies have been lapsed due to non-payment of premiums out of the deceased salary or for non-intimating to late Thipanna in-writing during the service period and life-time by the Respondent NO-1 to make own arrangements towards payment of premium of policies to the Respondent No-2. So failure in-discharging proper duties by the Respondent NO-1 leads to lapsing of policies and made monetary loss, hardship and inconvenience to the deceased and complainant for which Respondent No-1 & 2 are liable to compensate the complainant. The Respondent NO-2 being insurer failed to discharge his duty in collecting the premium from Respondent No-1, therefore the Respondent NO-2 alone would be liable for compensate the complainant. The complainant got issued Legal Notice to the Respondents to pay the policy amount. The said notice was served upon the Respondents. However the Respondent No-2 ultimately repudiated the claim of the complainant through letter dt. 30-05-08. For this complainant sought direction against the Respondents to pay the death benefits under five policies along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 10-05-2003 to till realization with cost of the proceedings. 2. The Respondents 1 & 2 appeared through their respective counsel and have filed their written version. The Respondent No-1 Managing Director, Hutti Gold Mines Ltd., has filed written version contending that the late Thipanna the husband of the complainant was employed under the Respondent No-1 Corporation. He had opted for voluntarily retirement on 25-08-98 thereafter he died on 10-05-03. This Respondent No-2 has regularly remitted the premium of late Thipanna to the LIC whenever his wages were sufficient. Thereafter due to non-availability of the sufficient wages of said Thipanna to pay the premium, the premium could not be remitted to the LIC. That the said fact was being regularly informed by the Respondent No-1 to late Thipanna and also he had knowledge of non-payment of premium when he took his monthly wage slip. This Respondent NO-1 could not deduct the Insurance premium from the salary of said employee because his earnings during his service till August 1998 were not enough to recover the LIC premium which stands at Clause-1 at Sub-clause (2) of section 7 of Payment of Wages Act, because the deductions are to be made on the basis of priority as per the provisions of law. Therefore the non-payment of premium of said employee by deducting from his salary did not fall in the order of priority. Hence Respondent No-1 is neither negligent nor violated any alleged undertaking claim to LIC. So he is not liable to damages and compensation as claimed. It is further contended that as the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India that non-payment of premium by the employer collecting from the employees salary does not absolute LIC to pay the policy amount and even other wise in the entire complaint no specific allegations have been made against this Respondent NO-1 as such they have sought for dismissal of complaint of the complainant with cost. 3. The Respondent Insurance Company in the written version has contended that late Thipanna has died on 10-05-2003 but it was intimated to this Respondent NO-2 only in the month of January-2008 through Lawyers Notice and no claim is submitted by the nominee or the present complainant, under these circumstances the claim is time barred and apart from this, the policies or all in lapsed condition and according to rules nothing is payable to the nominee or to anybody including the complainant claiming under these policies. This Respondent No-2 further contended that the policy No. 661071845 dt. 28-10-91 and 661760539 28-01-91 held by the deceased are surrendered during his life-time only and the remaining three policies i.e, 661196326 dt. 28-03-96 is in lapsed condition from first unpaid premium for the month of August-1998 similarly 661196869 dt. 27-07-96 and 661208915 dt. 15-02-96 these two policies are in lapsed condition from first unpaid premium for the month of September-1998. The first above said two policies have been surrendered by the late Thipanna during his life time and remaining three policies have been lapsed due to non-payment of premium and accordingly they acquire no value to pay anything under them. So nothing is payable by this Respondent therefore the allegations made in this extent by the complainant are all false and baseless. Hence for all these reasons the Respondent No-2 has sought for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and also filed affidavit of one Sharanappa as PW-2 in support of her case. In-rebuttal the Executive Director of Hutti Gold Mines has filed sworn affidavit of Respondent No-1 by way of examination-in-chief as RW-1. Similarly the Assistant Administrative Officer of Respondent No-2 Corporation has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as RW-2. On behalf of complainant (14) documents were got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14. On behalf of the Respondent No-1 has not produced any document to be marked. The Respondent No-2 (5) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 were got marked. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents, as alleged. 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for. 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Negative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that late Thipanna was an employee working under Respondent NO-1 and he had taken five Insurance Policies in-question under Salary Saving Scheme and this Thipanna died on 10-05-2003 and that the present complainant is the nominee of the life assured. 8. Respondent NO-1 Hutti Gold Mines in their written version have stated that they have regularly remitted the premium of employee-late Thipanna to the LIC whenever his wages were sufficient. Thereafter due to non-availability of sufficient wages of the said Thipanna to pay the premium, the premium could not be remitted to the LIC and this fact was being regularly informed to late Thipanna and he had also knowledge of non-payment of premium when he took his monthly wage slip. Thereafter the Respondent NO-1 in Para- 3 of the written version contended that the late Thipanna had opted for voluntarily retirement on 25-08-1998 and after his voluntary retirement he died on 10-05-2003. This contention of the Respondent NO-1 is clearly goes to show that the late Thipanna was died after his voluntary retirement from this Respondent NO-1 Company and after lapse of five years he has died. This fact explains that at the time of his death he was not in service. For this there is no evidence by the complainant/rebutting this fact nor she has denied the same. Under these circumstances question of deducting the premium by this Respondent from the salary of late Thipanna from 15-08-1998 onwards does not arise. From the day of his retirement salary saving scheme comes to an end and. Similarly the relationship between the Respondent No-1 & 2 and of late Thipanna in-respect of salary saving scheme also comes to an end. From the close perusal of the complaint pleading of the complainant and documents we do not find any substance regarding payment of premium from the date of his voluntary retirement to his date of death by the late Thipanna from his own pocket for which he was supposed to pay premium to keep alive the policies in-question. The Ex.P-5 is the letter of Respondent No-2 addressed to CRM LIC Divisional Office, Raichur. In this letter it is clearly shown that the life assured late Thipanna has surrendered the two policy Nos. 661071845 & 661160539 and lapsing of the remaining three policies i.e, 661196326, 661196869, and 661208945. Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 are status report of the two policies surrender by late Thipanna. Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10 are status report of remaining three policies showing the lapsing of each policy owing to non-payment of policy premium from August 1998 and September 1998 respectively. Admittedly late Thipanna had taken voluntary retirement on 25-08-98 and died on 10-05-2003 so to say he was alive for more than (5) years from his retirement. When he has not paid any premium during these five years automatically the policies have been lapsed as seen from the status of policy filed at Ex.P-8 = Ex.R-3, Ex.P-9 = Ex.R-4 and Ex.P-10 = Ex.R-5. For this the Respondent No-2 cannot be blamed since the reason for lapsing the policies is the mistake/negligence of late Thipanna only. This is nothing but digging a grave by Thipanna himself. Therefore we do not find any wrong with the Respondent NO-2 regarding repudiating the policies as shown in Ex.P-12. 9. The Respondent NO-2 in his written version at Para-3 contended that, late Thipanna has died on 10-05-2003 but it was intimated to this Respondent only in the month of January-2008 through Advocate and no claim is submitted by the nominee or the present complainant under these circumstances the claim is time barred. Admittedly the late Thipanna has died on 10-05-2003 as per the Ex.P-1 death certificate produced by the complainant. The complainant submitted an application vide Ex.P-2 under R.T.I. Act on 28-01-2008 seeking copies of correspondence and documents pertaining to (5) policies of her late husband. This fact very clearly goes to show that the complainant came to know her claim in the policy only after lapse of five years after the death of her husband. So undoubtedly it is time barred only as contended by the Respondent No-2. Except this Ex.P-2 there is absolutely no other documents by the complainant to defeat the contention of the Respondent NO-2 as her claim is time barred. Of course the complainant in order to establish her case has filed her evidence along with supporting witness by name Sharanappa as PW-2 stating that she made several correspondence with the Respondent NO-2 in order to get benefits under the policies in question and the Respondent NO-2 did not settle the claim and stated that the corresponding file has been mis-placed and assured that they would take proper steps in tracing the file and processing her claim, but in-vain. Her witness PW-2 Sharanappa in his affidavit-evidence has stated that about few years back he has gone to the Respondent NO-2 office at Sindhanoor along with complainant and her brother and the concerned officials told that file of Seetamma has been mis-placed and they are not definite whether it has been sent to Divisional Office Raichur or not and they assured that they would make possible best efforts to trace out the file however not any steps were taken to settle the claim of the complainant. In order to substantiate these statements the complainant has not produced any scrap of document. When she has not produced any documents that itself goes to shows that neither the complainant nor the PW-2 approached the Respondent NO-2 and submitted their claim as contended in their complaint and evidence. Under these circumstances we have no other go then to dis-believe the evidence of the complainant and PW-2. Thus we cannot hold that the complainant has put forth her claim before the Respondent NO-2 in time and it clearly goes to show that for the first time in the year 2008 itself straight away the complainant approached to the Respondent NO-2 after lapse of five years from the date of death of late Thipanna. Similarly if we take it from the date of retirement of the late Thipanna it is more than 8 to 9 years. Hence the claim of the complainant is time barred as contended by the Respondents. Viewing from all angles the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable under any circumstances. Hence we hold that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed both on merits and limitation, hence we do not find any deficiency on the part of Respondent No-1 & 2 as contended by the complainant. Therefore Point NO-1 is answered in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 10. In view of our discussion and findings on Point NO-1, holding that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service by the Respondents so he is not entitled for reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-01-09) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.