MS. NIPUR CHANDNA,MEMBER

ORDER

1. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant is having the bank account with Punjab national Bank, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-07. The Op-2 was working as an agent for OP-1 and is attached with the bank branch, where part of his job was to solicitate, lured the bank account holders to opt for PNB Met Life Insurance Policy Plan.
2. It is alleged by the complainant that she has total sum of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs in her account. Without apprising, informing and sharing the detail as well as pros and cons of the scheme OP-2 succeeded in getting  the policy in question from the complainant by showing rosy picture of the scheme and by virtually coerceing the complainant for signing certain documents without letting her read and understand the contents of the document. It is further alleged that the OP-2 succeeded in obtaining the signature of the complainant on the blank cheque and further succeeded in withdrawing a sum of Rs. 97,749.86/- for the purpose of Met Life Policy.
3. It is alleged by the complainant that OP-2 never informed her about the future installments/premiums to be paid by her as well as for non refund of the deposit amount paid against the Met Life Policy.
4. It is alleged by the complainant that she made a detailed representation vide letter dated 01.06.2022 to OP-1 but of no use. She also served legal notice to both the Ops vide legal notice dated 04.10.2022.  Ops neither reply to the legal notice nor had refunded the money. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the Ops complainant approached this Commission for redressal of her grievance.
5. The present complaint case is on admission stage. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar on behalf of the complainant on the issue of the limitation and have perused the record.
6. Let us peruse the relevant provision in respect of limitation provided under Consumer Protection Act.

As per section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019: -

1. The District Forum, 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 subsection (1). A complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, 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 National Commission , the State Commission, as the case may be records its reason form condoning such delay.

7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the complaint should be preferred within a period of two years of the accrual of cause of action.
8. On perusal of record before us, we found that the complainant in her complaint has nowhere mentioned that when she visited her bank and when that agent met her and induced her to purchase the policy? The complainant has placed on record the copy of the renewal premium notice which shows that the policy was issued in favour of the complainant in the year 2018. The renewal notice placed on record clearly shows that in the month of August, 2019 it came to her knowledge that she had purchased the policy and has to pay the annual premium for seven years. Along with the complaint the complainant has attached the copy of the complaint lodged by her with OP-1 but the written complaint addressed to OP-1 does not bear any date nor has any endorsement regarding the receipt of the complaint by OP-1.
9. Admittedly as per record the cause of action for filing the present complaint arose in the year 2019 when the complainant received the policy renewal notice. The complaint ought to have filed the present complaint within two years of the accrual of cause of action. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 17.03.2023 i.e. after the huge delay of 03 years and 04 months of the accrual of the cause of action. The complainant has not placed on  record any delay condonation application for justifying the huge delay in filing the present complaint.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provision and in the absence of   documentary proof and explanation as to why complainant failed to approach this commission within two years of accrual of cause of action, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is barred by limitation, hence dismissed.

File be consigned to record room.

Sanjay Kumar              Nipur Chandna                      Rajesh

  President                     Member                                   Member