Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/343

charanjit kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

united india insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh

01 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 343 dated 01.09.2022.                         

                             Date of decision: 01.12.2022. 

 

1.Charanjit Kaur aged 51 years widow of Late S.Gurcharan Singh

2.Lakhbir Singh, minor, s/o Late S.Gurcharan Singh

3.Gurdeep Singh, minor, s/o Late S.Gurcharan Singh

4.Ramanjot Kaur,  minor, d/o Late S.Gurcharan Singh,

  All minors, through their mother/natural guardian/next friend i.e. complainant no.1;

All residents of Mor Karima, Tehsil & District Ludhiana.                                  

                                                                                       ..…Complainants

                                                Versus

United Indian Insurance Company Limited, SCO-72, Phase-IX, SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite party

Complaint under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants           :         Sh.Vishal Kumar Dua, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                The complainants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint stating therein that the husband of the complainant no.1 and father of the complainant no.2 to 4 namely S.Gurcharan Singh was got insured himself with Bhagat Puran Singh Sehat Bima Yojna and was having card No.0304 1009 3358 0019 9(Ex.C1) issued by the OP. Unfortunately, on 09.04.2017, S.Gurcharan Singh the insured died when he got crushed under the Train in railway lines falling in the area of village Mullanpur, District Ludhiana. Proceedings under 174 Cr.P.C. by the Railway Police also lodged vide DDR No.82 dated 09.04.2017 (Ex.C4). Now the complainants have claimed in their complaint that they were repeatedly approached the OP to pass the appropriate orders on their claim but they kept the matter pending on one pretext or the other. In the end, the complainants have prayed for passing the direction to pass the claim of the policy of Rs.5 lacs and also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs on account of mental and physical harassment.

2.                We have heard the counsel for the complainants on the point of admissibility of the complaint.

3.                Counsel for the complainants has reiterated the version of the complaint in their arguments and prayed for admissibility at the preliminary stage.

4.                Before admitting of the complaint at preliminary stage, this Commission is also required to examine as to whether the complaint is within time or not.

5.                Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides as under:-

“Limitation Period:- (1)The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section(1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period;

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

6.                Perusal of the complaint shows that deceased S.Gurcharan Singh died on 09.04.2017 due to train accident and the complaint was required to be filed within two years from the date of his accident. No sufficient reasons have been shown in the complaint for non-filing of the same within the period of limitation.

7.                In SBI versus B.S.Agriculture Industries(I), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:-

“(t)he expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24-A[now, S.69(1) in the new CP Act, 2019] is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed there under.”

It has been further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that “(i)if the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum (Commission) decides the complaint on merits, the forum (Commission) would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

8.                Consequently, the present complaint is time barred and we do not inclined to proceed with the same and hence the same is hereby dismissed summarily at the admission stage itself. Copies of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules.           File be indexed and consigned to record room, but after registering the same.

 

 (Monika Bhagat)            (Jaswinder Singh)      (Sanjeev Batra)                        Member                     Member                      President      

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.12.2022.

Gurpreet Sharma