O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner, filed on 25..9..2009, is as follows: Petitioner joined the Insurance Scheme of the opposite party Insurance Company as per vide Policy No. 460765 Dtd: 27..5..94. The face value of the certificate is Rs. 35,000/-. Petitioner remitted an amount of Rs. 6,500/- towards the scheme. The scheme was terminated on 2004. According to the petitioner, the original policy certificate was irrecoverably lost from the custody of petitioner. She submitted an application for claim on 18th June 2007 along with indemnity bond and other relevant documents to the opposite party. Petitioner states that as per the terms and conditions agreed between the petitioner and the opposite party opposite party is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 6,500/-, as terminated maturity -2- amount, but inspite of repeated demands opposite party had not repaid the amount. So, petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to pay the policy amount of Rs. 6500/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 18..6..2007 till realization. Petitioner claims Rs. 3,000/- as cost and compensation. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party present complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation. Opposite party contented that admittedly petitioner obtained certificate from the Opposite party No. 2. On 14..2..94 under table 23 for a term of 10 years with yearly installment of Rs. 2,500/- and date of maturity is on 14..2..2004. Petitioner had deposited one installment of Rs. 2,500/- under the aforesaid certificate . Due to non payment of installment petitioner was entitled only the maturity value of Rs. 5,200/-. On February 2004 petitioner submitted the certificate in original along with other document with opposite party No. 2. After processing the claim of petitioner, opposite party issued account payee Cheque with vide No. 1004984 Dtd: 2..6..2004 for Rs. 5,200/- drawn on ICICI Bank as full and final satisfaction of the claim. The said Cheque was encashed by the petitioner on 17..6..2004. So, according to the opposite party, petitioner is not entitled for any amount. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not? -3- ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? iii) Relief and cost? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B4 documents on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 According to the opposite party admittedly the certificate was matured on 14..2..2004. Present complaint is submitted after 2 years and is barred by limitation as per section 24 (a) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. In our view the case of the petitioner is that he has not received the maturity value even after repeated demand. So cause of action as per the case of the petitioner is a continuing cause of action and we find the petition as maintainable. Point No. 2 Crux of the case of the petitioner is that opposite party has not returned the maturity value of the certificate issued by the opposite party. According to the opposite party they had given the amount on 12..6..2004 as per an account payee Cheque . Opposite party produced the details of the statement of accounts of the petitioner, maintained in SBT, Kumarakom Branch, said document is marked as Ext. B4, In Ext. B4 it is shown that there is a deposit of Rs. 5,200/- on 2..6..2004. Petitioner had taken a contention that the said amount was given by the opposite party for some other policy certificate with the opposite party. But in -4- our view when the opposite party produced the details of account then definitely the burden will shift to the side of the petitioner to prove that the said amount was received in the account of the petitioner from the opposite party for some other policy with the opposite party. Here the petitioner failed to prove that the credit entry of the amount of Rs. 5200/-, on 12..6..2004, in the account of the petitioner was for some other policy with the opposite party. So, we can not attribute any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Point No. 1 & 2 is found accordingly. Point No. 3 In view of finding in point No. 1 and 2, petition is dismissed. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner: Ext. A1: Copy of letter Dtd: Nil Ext. A2: Copy of receipt of petition Ext. A3: Copy of Commission statement Documents for the opposite party: Ext. B1: Policy certificate Ext. B2: Copy of maturity Cell Archive Enquiry Ext. B3: Discharge form cum voucher Ext. B4: Statement of accounts for the petitioner. By Order, Senior Superintendent
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
