BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Consumer Complaint No.86 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 8.2.2012.
Date of order on application: 30-7-2015.
Smt. Chemali Devi widow of Shri Bale Singh, son of Shri Ram Chander, resident of 825A, Urban Estate, II, Hissar,
….Complainant.
Versus
- The Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Command Office, Sahara India Bhawan, Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow, through its MD/PO.
- The Manager, Branch Office, Sahara India, Bhiwani.
- National Ins. Co. Ltd. Divn. Office, 4, Jeevan Bhawan, Phase-1 43, Hazarganj, Lucknow through Branch Office Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.
….Opposite Parties..
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Present:- Shri R.N.Rohilla, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri J.B.Saini, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.
Shri R.K.Sharma, Advocate for OP No.3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
For the disposal of the application, brief facts of the case are that the Ram Chander (now deceased) husband of the complainant invested Rs.1,00000/- on 29.8.2003 as per scheme plan of Sahara India Yojna. It is alleged that husband of the complainant met with an accident on 10.5.2005 and suffered multiple injuries including injuries to brain. It is also alleged that the husband of the complainant remained in Coma and ultimately died on 6.1.2007. It is further alleged that the complainant being nominee of the Investor Shri Bale Singh became entitled to receive the amount of Rs.4,00000/- from the respondents. The complainant further alleged that she visited the office respondents several times and requested to pay the amount but after one year from the date of death the Ops have issued a cheque dated 24.1.2008 amounting to Rs.1,27,646/- whereas the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.4,00000/- as per scheme under which the amount was invested. The complainant further alleged that she requested the respondents to pay the remaining amount but they did not pay any heed, hence it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, she had to file the present complaint.
2. In reply the Ops No.1 & 2 filed written statement alleging therein that late Shri Bale Singh advanced Rs.1,00000/- under Sahara Swrn Yojna on 29.8.2003 at Branch Office, Bhiwani and the benefit of insurance provided by the answering Ops is free of charge service. Since, the answering opposite parties are not an insurance company and as such cannot issue any insurance policy. It is also alleged that the policy was taken by the answering Ops on payment of premium at it’s own but without charging any premium or any part thereof from the insured/beneficiaries.of 2008 on the same cause of action before District Forum, Hisar which was dismissed on 11.3.2011. However, the Hon’ble District Forum, Hisar has given liberty to complainant to vile Civil Court before the Civil Court and time spent before this District Forum can be condoned in terms of Judgment in Laxmi Enginering Works Vs PSG Industrial Institute, 1995(3) SCC Page 583.
3. OP No.3 on appearance also filed separate written statement alleging therein that the Ops No.1 & 2 have not placed on record any document to show that the risk of deceased was covered under the insurance policy. It is also alleged that the alleged injury sustained by deceased before 23.5.2005 which is not covered under the insurance policy as the present policy was effective from 5.9.2006 to 4.9.2007. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is not maintainable and the insurance company is not liable to pay the any claim.
4. During the proceedings of the complaint, the complainant has filed an application for amendment of complaint on the ground that the applicant has mentioned in Para No.1 of the complaint on page No.2 in lines No.5 & 6 :- pass book No.25300 and certificate No.10577462 and the complainant wants to amend certificate bearing serial No.1657462 in this Para. That the applicant has mentioned in Para No.5 of the complaint that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.4,00000/- whereas the respondents has paid Rs.1,27,646/- and the complainant is entitled for balance amount. It is also alleged that due to clerical mistake it has been mentioned in Para No.5 of the complaint that the respondents are liable to make payment of Rs.4,00000/- less amount already paid along with interest. The above said mistake has been taken place inadvertently and is a clerical mistake. Similarly, the complainant wants to amend Para No.7 of the complaint wherein it has been mentioned that directions be issued to Ops to pay balance claimed amount Rs.4,00000/- less already paid. So, the complainant wants to amend Para No.7 of the complaint by deleting the words”Less already Paid” as Para No.7-A. The complainant also wants to amend the prayer clause and wants to delete the words”Less already paid” in the prayer clause. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above the mistake occurred inadvertently and a clerical mistake.
5. In reply to application the Ops No.1 & 2 have submitted that there is no Provision under the C.P.Act, 1986 to amend the complaint. It is also alleged that the present complaint filed after four years from the earlier complaint and the complainant has admitted that she has received part payment of Rs.1,27,646/- against claimed amount of Rs.4,00000/- . Accordingly, the District Forum has given its judgment about the payment of claim samount of Rs.1,27,646/- and the said order has not been challenged by the complainant. It is also alleged that the District Forum Hisar also passed judgment that the complainant approach civil court but ignorning the judgment and order dated 11.3.2011 he deliberately filed the present complaint. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the application is not maintainable and the same be dismissed with costs.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. The Counsels for the Ops stressed that before consideration on the application of amendment of the complaint, the issue of limitation be decided first which was not objected by the counsel for the complainant. They further submitted that the husband of the complainant died on 6.1.2007, hence the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 6.1.2007 but the present complaint has been filed on 8.2.2012 by the complainant before this District Forum, beyond the period of limitation.
8. The counsel for the complainant submitted that earlier complaint No.234 of 2008 was filed before the District Forum, Hisar and the same was dismissed by the District Forum, Hisar vide order dated 11.3.2011 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. However, the complainant was allowed to seek the remedy before Civil Court, if so advised. He further submitted that the complainant was ill and thus there is delay in filing the present complaint by the complainant. The counsel for the OPs argued that the complainant was allowed to seek remedy before Civil Court. They further contended that earlier complaint was dismissed on 11.3.2011 and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 8.2.2012 after about eleven months from the date of dismissal of earlier complaint by the District Forum, Hisar.
9. In the context of pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the material on record. The relevant portion of order dated 11.3.2011passed by District Forum, Hisar in complaint No.234 of 2008 titled as Chemali Devi Versus Sahara India etc. is re-produced below:-
“Hence, in view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. However, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute 1995(3) SCC page 583, the complainant may seek exemption/condition of the time spent before the Consumer For a to seek remedy before the Civil Court, if so advised.”
10. As per above said order, the complainant was given liberty to seek remedy before Civil Court, if so advised, and she was allowed to seek exemption of time spent before the Consumer Fora Hisar, in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Work’s case (Supra). A perusal of case file reveals that no step has been taken by the complainant to get condoned the delay in terms of the order dated 11.3.2011 of District Forum, Hisar at the time of filing of the present complaint before this District Forum. In view of the facts, narrated above, we hold that the complaint of the complainant before this District Forum was filed beyond the period of limitation as envisaged under Section 24(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended up to date. Without going into the merits of the case, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed, being time barred, with no order as to costs.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
30.7.2015
(Balraj Singh)
Member.
Satyawan Vs Jai Kissan Tractor
Present:- None for the complainant.
None for OP No.1.
Case called several times since morning. It is now 2:55 P.M. None appeared on behalf of complainant as well as OP No.1 This complaint is pending for the service of OP No.2 for want of registered cover. The complainant has failed to file registered cover for the service of OP No.2 despite availing a number of opportunities. For the last several date of hearing none is appeared on behalf of complainant. It seems that the complainant is not interested to persue his complaint and the same is dismissed in default.
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani. 30.7.2015
(Balraj Singh)
Member.
