STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                Date of Institution: 09.08.2017

                                                          Date of final hearing: 28.04.2023

Date of pronouncement: 18.05.2023

First Appeal No.957 of 2017

In the matter of:-

V.K. Bhandari son of Shri M.L. Bhandari, aged 68 years, resident of H.No.113, Green Park, Hisar.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Branch Manager LIC of India, U.E.-II, Hisar.

2.      Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, SCO 3,4,5 Sector-1 HUDA, Rohtak.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member

Argued by:-         Sh.Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for theappellant.

                             Sh. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

                                                ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Vide order dated 04.07.2017; complainant-V.K. Bhandari has been non-suited by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short “District Commission”) as his complaint case No.24 of 2016 has been dismissed. Legality to this order (04.07.2017) has been questioned by complainant in present appeal

2.      Complainant purchased LIC Policy-New Jeevan Dhara-1/New Jeevan Suraksha Plan-1 under table 147-6-6 bearing No.173655021. Annual premium of Rs.10,000/- were paid regularly from December, 2003 to December, 2008 (total Rs.60,000/- in six installments). Policy matured on 13.12.2009. On asking by LIC to give option; he gave option ‘F’- “Pension for life with return of purchase price on death of pensioner”. Amount of Rs.4,912/- in shape of 4 quarterly installment of Rs.1,228/- was being paid to him upto December, 2011. In year 2012; LIC office asked for Bank details so as to transfer the pension proceeds, directly to the Bank account of the pensioner. Pension payments of LIC were either very late and some of installments were not received at regular intervals. He again submitted bank details i.e. NEFT, MICR etc. in prescribed proforma in office of LIC office, Hisar in 2013. Again, payment of pension as per LIC were not regular in time, nor proper amount was credited to his bank account. He served legal notice dated 13.10.2015 through registered post, thereby calling upon respondents to pay all unpaid installments of pension with interest. Information under RTI dated 30.11.2015 revealed abnormal delay of pension due in 2012, 2013 to insured, who badly suffered; financially, socially and economically being a senior citizen more than 60 years and patient of Heart and other aliments. On these pleas, he filed complaint for direction to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac along with interest @18% from the date of maturity of policy till its realization; to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.80,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony, deficiency in service etc.

3.      OPs/respondents raised contest. In defence, it is asserted that complainant is not consumer; complaint is misconceived, groundless and unsustainable. It is hopelessly time barred. It is abuse of process of law. There is no deficiency in service of respondents/OPs. Complainant has not come with clean hands. He has suppressed true and material facts. OP issued policy No.173655021 on the life of Vipin Kumar Bhandari commencing from 13.12.2003 maturity December, 2009, under plan and term: 147-06-06, premium Rs.10,000/- Mode yearly. Option letter given by annuitant has been ratified by Branch within stipulated period. Some installments were paid late and after that some payments were made timely. All payments were made on 16.08.2013. Penal interest of Rs.662/- was also paid on 03.05.2016. It is pleaded that complainant did not suffered any financial loss.

5.      Parties to this lis led their respective evidence oral as well as documentary before learned District Commission. Complainant closed his evidence on 08.02.2017. OPs closed its evidence on 12.05.2017.

6.      On subjectively analyzing the evidence; learned District Commission, Hisar vide order dated 04.07.2017 has dismissed the complaint with no order as to cost by holding that there is no violation of policy terms.

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant has filed this appeal.

8.      I have heard learned counsel for parties at length. Record too has been perused.  Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has urged that that LIC’s admitted stand in its written statement is that there was delay in payment of some installments.  Once delay in payment in installment is an admitted phenomenon of LIC then, District Commission should have awarded compensation to the complainant policy-holder on account of deficiency in its service. Hence, as per contention impugned Order dated 04.07.2017 suffers from illegality.

9.      On the other hand learned counsel for respondents has urged that impugned Order dated 04.07.2017 does not suffer from any infirmity, much less any illegality. It is urged that complaint filed before District Commission is time barred.

10.    This Commission on analyzing the rival contentions put before it is of firm opinion that complainant has not suffered any financial loss. It is for the obvious reason that all payments in furtherance to his LIC policy were made to him on 16.08.2013 as per specific stand of respondents in its written statement. This fact is not in dispute. May be, there were some delays’ in payment of installments to appellant in relation to policy but that will not confer any indefeasible right upon complainant to allege any deficiency in service of respondents, at his own whims and fancies. Learned District Commission has rightly observed that there is no violation of policy terms. Finding to this effect, does not warrant any interference by this Commission in present appeal. Consequently, this finding of learned District Commission is maintained and affirmed.

11.    Now, coming to legal argument of learned counsel for respondents that complaint so instituted before District Commission is time barred.  Specific objection No. 5 of preliminary objection has been taken in written version by respondents that compliant is hopelessly time barred. Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (old Act) stipulates a period of 2 years from date of cause of action to file complaint before District Commission. In the complaint itself Para No. 15 thereof, there is a plea that pension due to complainant were paid on 16.08.2013. Identical is the factual stand of Ops in its written statement. If cause of action has accrued to complainant on 16.08.2013 and he has visualized that pension to him has been paid belatedly, then he should have file complaint within two years reckoning from 16.08.2013. Limitation to file complaint, once begun to run from 16.08.2013 will not get a halt. Service of legal notice dated 13.10.2015 or information through RTI dated 30.11.2015 will not enhance the period of limitation in any manner. This complaint was filed on 18.01.2016. It is clearly time barred. Learned District Commission has not analyzed the controversy on this angel. The complainant’s compliant so filed before it should also have been dismissed, being time barred. Through this order, It is now dismissed being time barred.

12.    As a sequel thereto, this appeal being meritless, deserves dismissal. It is accordingly dismissed. Impugned order dated 04.07.2017 of learned District Commission, Hisar is affirmed and maintained.

13.       Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

14.       A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

15.      File be consigned to record room.

Date of pronouncement: 18^th May, 2023