ATAM PARKASH vs Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 806 of 2011 - Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Atam Parkash by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner''s wife Sunder Devi was running a grocery shop and she died on 14.12.2008 on account of fire in the grocery shop. Complainant informed about the death of Sunder Devi to OP No. 1, 2 & 3/Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 and demanded compensation under Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojna Scheme. OP 2 to 4 remitted claim papers of the complainant to OP No. 4/Respondent No. 1 on 11.3.2010, but as claim was not paid, alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1, 2 & 3 resisted complaint and submitted that they have remitted claim papers to OP No. 4 on 11.3.2010, hence, complaint may be dismissed against them. OP No. 4 resisted complaint and submitted that complainant neither purchased insurance policy from OP No. 4, nor paid any premium and aforesaid Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojna Scheme is a social benefit policy signed between the Government of Haryana and the OP No. 4. It was submitted that documents about the death were received by OP No. 1 in March, 2010, whereas as per Condition No. 1 of the policy, intimation should have been received within one month and it was the violation of the terms of policy; hence no claim was payable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP no. 4 to pay Rs.1,00,000/ - with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.1,000/ - cost. Appeal filed by the OP No. 4 was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner sent claim documents to OP No. 1, 2 & 3 in time, but OP No. 4 committed deficiency in not making payment of the claim and order passed by learned District Forum was in accordance with law and learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that on account of violation of terms of policy and as claim was time barred, leaned State Commission rightly dismissed complaint, hence, revision petition be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the Respondent no. 2 to 4 submitted that petitioner should get benefit of the policy.

CONDITION No. 1 of the policy runs as under: "Upon the happening of any event which may give rise to a claim under this Policy, written notice with full particulars must be given to the Company immediately. Unless reasonable cause is shown, the Insured Person/Nominee should within one calendar month after the event, which may give rise to a claim under the policy, give written notice to the Company with full particulars of the claim".

As per this condition, complainant was under an obligation to give intimation of the death of his wife to OP No. 4 immediately and further was under an obligation to submit claim with full particulars within a period of one month but as claim papers were sent after 14 months, which is clear violation of the terms & conditions of policy and in such circumstances, complainant was not entitled to any claim. Not only this, complainant filed complaint on 3.1.2011 meaning thereby, after 2 years of the cause of action and as per Section 24A of the C.P. Act, complaint must have been filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. Learned State Commission rightly dismissed complaint as barred by limitation on the basis of law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes - : 2011 CTJ I (SC) CP and I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.