Smt. Shanti Devi and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - sections 24a, 21(b); comparative citations: 2013 (1) cpr 397, 2013 (1) cpj 431suresh chandra, member briefly stated, the facts of this case are that one inder singh (hereinafter referred to as life assured) obtained an insurance policy from the op insurance co. for the period from 26.2.1997 to 25.2.2007 for a sum of rs.5 lakhs. the life assured died in a road accident in the midnight of 7/8.1.2002. fir no.197 of 6.3.2002 was lodged with the police station, gurgaon wherein an untraced report was prepared by the police and forwarded to the chief judicial magistrate, gurgaon. necessary intimation was given to the op insurance co. but it refused to pay the claim amount and hence alleging it a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainants/petitioners filed a complaint before the district forum. the district forum vide its order dated 13.8.2007 accepted the complaint and directed the op insurance co. to pay rs.5 lakhs to the complainants/petitioners within a period of one month. the op insurance co. filed an appeal against this order of the district forum before the haryana state consumer disputes redressal commission, panchkula (state commission for short). the state commission vide its order dated 29.3.2011 allowed the appeal of the op insurance co. and set aside the aforesaid order of the district forum and dismissed the complaint. aggrieved by the impugned order of the state commission, the complainants have filed this revision petition against the same. 2. we have heard mr. r.k. bhartiya, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 3. it is seen that the state commission has reversed the order of the district forum and dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was barred by limitation. while accepting the appeal of the op insurance co., the state commission has made the following observations:- œfrom the perusal of record, it is crystal clear that the claim submitted by the complainant was treated as no claim by the opposite parties and the intimation in this regard was sent to the complainant on 17.03.2003 whereas the complainants have filed the present complaint on 25.08.2006 i.e. beyond the prescribed period of two years as provided under section 24-a of the consumer protection act, 1986. it is well settled principle of law that no complaint can be entertained by the consumer forum if it is not filed within two years from the date of cause of action. reliance is placed on the case titled as kandimalla raghavaiah and co. versus national insurance co. ltd. and another, 2009 ctj 951 (supreme court) (cp) wherein it has been held by honble apex court that:- œif the complaint is barred by time and yet the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside? 4. applying the ratio laid down by the apex court to the facts of the present case, the state commission treated the complaint of the petitioners as barred by limitation and hence held that the same could not have been entertained by the district forum. the view taken by the state commission in its impugned order is correct and according to the provisions of the consumer protection act and the law laid down by the apex court. this being the legal position based on the undisputed facts, we do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is liable to be set aside at the threshold. it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.