Bheemanna Sugthekar ... v. The Branch Manager, ...

ORDER This is a complaint filed by the complainant by name Bheemanna Sugthekar against opposite LIC of India U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite insurance company to pay assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards policy amount with damages and cost with interest. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he is the holder of LIC policy bearing No. 660037340 for assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- the said policy matured in the month of September 2000. Opposite Insurance Company not took any action to intimate the maturity date to him after September-2000 he was engaged in other works, commitments and he was suffering from old age deceases, therefore he did not claim the matured amount from LIC. Late he came to know the maturity of the policy and thereafter on 04-03-10 he filed claim petition, but it was not considered, thereafter he issued legal notice on 26-05-10 for to settle the claim but opposite LIC not responded to his request, as such he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Heard on the limitation point. Perused the records and facts pleaded in the complaint. In view of the circumstances stated above. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether this complaint is within the limitation period as per the requirements of section 24(a)(1) of C.P. Act. 2. What order? 4. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the Negative. (2) In view of the finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following: REASONS POINT NO.1:- 5. It is the case of the complainant that, he subscribed LIC policy from opposite it matured in the month of September-2000. He did not claim the matured amount as it was not informed to him by opposite LIC. It also contended in Para-3 & 4 regarding his previous engagements and sufferings of his old age. 6. It is further contended that, on 04-03-10 he requested the LIC authority by filing claim petition and original LIC policy for to make payment of matured amount of the policy.

Opposite did not respond to his request, therefore he issued legal notice on 26-05-10 and thereafter he filed this complaint. 7. The entire pleadings of him clearly goes to show that, the LIC policy of him matured in the month of 2000, from that date till 04-03-10 he not made any claim of the said matured amount from opposite LIC, thereafter he issued legal notice on 26-05-10 and this complaint is filed on 17-06-10.

In the light of the above contentions, now let us find out whether this complaint is under limitation or otherwise it is barred by limitation in view of legal requirements of section 24(a)(1) of C.P. Act. 8. The Honble Supreme Court in a decided case of Sidramappa V/s. Rajesh Shetty and others reported in 1970(i) SC 186 defined the cause of action as which gives rise occasion for and forming the foundation of the suit. 9. In another decided case by the Honble Supreme Court in Kardi Malla Raghavayya and company V/s. National Insurance Company reported in 2009 (VII) SCC 768 defined the term of cause of action as:- The term cause of action is neither defined in the Act nor in the CPC 1908, but it is wide important, it has different meanings in different contexts, i.e, when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or accrual of right to suit generally, it is described as bundle of facts, which if proved or admitted entitled the plaintiff to the relief prayed for, pithily stated cause of action means the cause of action for which the suit is brought cause of action is cause of action which gives occasion for and forming the fundamental of the suit. 10. Keeping in view of the principles of the above said rulings, now let us find out what is the date of cause of action occurred to the complainant to file this complaint. According to complainant the cause of action arose to him on 04-03-10 and subsequently on 26-05-10 and the complaint filed by within two years from the date of cause of action. Hence the complaint is under limitation. 11. The submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant is not correct. The cause of action arose to the complainant in the month of September-2000 which was the moth gives right t claim the matured amount of the said policy and not either on 04-03-10 or on 26-05-10. As per the requirement of section 24(a)(1) of C.P. Act and in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in State Bank of India V/s. B.S. Agricultural Industry reported in 2009 (IV) SCC 91 this complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as the complaint is required to file within two years from the month of September-2000, but it was filed on 17-06-10 after lapse of round about (8) years, complainant not filed an application for condonation of delay U/sec. 24(a)(2) of C.P. Act with sufficient cause for to condone such delay. Hence the grounds urged in the main complainant for non claiming the policy amount within two years from September-2000 are not helpful for him to bring this complaint under limitation. 12. The learned advocate for complainant submitted a ruling reported in AIR 1999 SC 3243, France. B.Martins and another V/s. Mrs. Mafaida Maria Teresa Rodrigues to get support of its to his case as this complaint is under limitation. We have gone through the principles of the ruling referred above of their lordships of the Supreme Court. It was a case prior to the insertion of section 24(a)(1)&(2) of c.p. act, their lordships have discussed the said case after insertion of 24(a) of C.P. Act under provisions of the limitation Act 1963, further, it was noted by their lordships, that there was an acknowledgement of the liability to deliver the legal position of the plot to the opposite vide notice sent to the opposite by appellant. In the light of the circumstances that case their lordships observed that the case was under limitation. 13. The facts of that case are different to the facts of this case, there was no acknowledgement of liability within two years from the date of cause of action by the LIC of India, the complainant-himself slept over his rights round about (8) years, as such issuance of notice by him on 04-03-10 or issuance of legal notice dt. 26-05-10 will not enlarge the limitation period of two years. Hence with great respect of their lordship of the Honble S.C. we have not applied those principles to this case. Hence the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant to hold that, the present complaint is under limitation is rejected. Legislature intent of section 24(1) of C.P. Act is quite against to the facts of this case, accordingly we rejected the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant in this regard and come to a conclusion that this complaint is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in Negative. POINT NO.2:- 14. In-view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as it is barred by limitation. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 25-06-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.