Back
2011(4) CPR 64 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
R.K. Batta, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
Laxshmi Bai & Ors. —Petitioners
versus
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd. & Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition Nos. 3118-3144 and 4139-4242 of 2010 and Revision Petition Nos. 543-551 of 2011
Decided on 5.8.2011
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners in RP 3118 to 3144 of 2010, RP 4139 to 4232 of 2010 and RP 543 to 551 of 2011:Mr. Abhinav Malhotra, Advocate with Ms. Mona Paliwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1 in RP 3118 to 3144 of 2010, RP 4139 to 4232 of 2010 and RP 543 to 551 of 2011:Mr. D. Varadarajan, Advocate With Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 in RP 3118 to 3144 of 2010 and RP 4139 to 4232 of 2010:Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in RP 3118 to 3144 of 2010: Nemo.
IMPORTANT POINT
Question of limitation and that of accrual of cause of action has to be considered in the light of nature of scheme.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 24-A—Insurance—Vivekananda Insurance Scheme—Limitation—Cause of action—Question of limitation and that of accrual of cause of action has to be considered in the light of nature of scheme—Cause of action, for the purposes of Section 24-A , arises on date of death—Where no claim is made either with nodal officer or Insurance Company, within 2 years of date of death such claims shall be barred by limitation—Cases where claim is made to nodal officer or nodal officer has forwarded claim to Insurance Company or claim has been directly filed with Insurance Company within 2 years of death and claim has remained undecided, in such a case cause of action will continue till the day insurance company pays or rejects claim—In a case where claim is rejected by insurance company, cause of action arises again from date of such rejection—Matter remanded for reconsideration. (Paras 12 to 15)
Vinay Kumar, Member—These are a set of 140 Revision Petitions, listed in the three groups as Lakshmi Bai and others, Chaya Bai and others and Tulsi Bai and others. The petitioners were complainants before the concerned district fora. The respondent in all these cases are ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (hereinafter referred to as ICICI LGIC), who were OPs before the district fora.
2. All the Cases pertain to claims of insurance cover of Rs. 50,000/- in the event of death, under the Vivekananda Insurance Scheme of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, implemented by the respondent/Insurance Companies. This scheme was evolved for the protection of the persons below the poverty line and in the age group of 18 to 65 years. In the event of death or permanent incapacitation of any such person, the Insurance Company designated for the district concerned, was required to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The claims were to be considered in consultation with the Nodal Officer of the district.
3. The scheme also contemplated that the Insurance Company for the district will be responsible for obtaining the claims through the designated local officers and for making the payment within a period of 15 days. Delaying of the decision, either on the ground of absence of final report in the FIR, filing of charge-sheet, postmortem report etc. was specifically disallowed, under the scheme.
4. In some of these cases, consumer complaints have been filed after lapse of more than two years from the death of the concerned individual. The district fora came to the conclusion that the cause of action arose on the date of death and therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24-(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, all such complaints have been dismissed by the concerned district fora. Appeals against dismissal of these complaints, have been considered by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission has noted that provision in Section 24-A itself allows the complaint to be filed beyond the period of limitation, if the complainant is able to satisfy the forum about the reasons that caused such delay.
5. In the matter of Lakshmi Bai v. ICICI LGIC, the State Commission has noted that the insured had died on 17.5.2006 and the Nodal Officer forwarded the complete claim form to the Insurance Company on 21.6.2006. The Insurance Company was required to settle the claim within 15 days i.e. 6.7.2006. The State Commission therefore, observed that even with reference to 6.7.2006, the date of consumer complaint filed on 17.9.2009, would be more than three years and therefore, barred by limitation. Therefore, the State Commission dismissed the appeals of the Complainants.
6. In Tulsi Bai and others v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors, the State Commission has observed that some of the appellants have sought condonation of delay on the ground of their poverty and ignorance, as reasons for not approaching the District Forum in time. Such plea has been rejected by the State Commission as not acceptable in explanation of the delay. Hence, the appeals have been dismissed by the State Commission. Similarly, in Chaya v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., the State Commission has dismissed the appeals on the ground of that no justification was offered for the delays ranging from 7 months and one and a half years, which could be considered for acceptance under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act.
7. These revision petitions have been filed on behalf of the complainants alleging that their petitions has been dismissed on erroneous application of the legal principle of commencement of cause of action and not on merits. The matter was heard on 6.12.2010 and reserved for orders. In the meanwhile, an application was received from respondent No.2, Reliance General Insurance Company and, in the interest of justice, it was decided to give them an opportuni
