3/18/23, 12:08 PM about:blank

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 05/02/2013 in Appeal No. 67/2013 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. SUNITA
WD/O LATE SURESH KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE MURTHAL,
TEHSIL
SONEPAT
HARYANA ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus  
1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & 2 ORS.
SCO NO-212-214,SECTOR-34A.
CHANDIGARH
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HDFC BANK BUILDING, D-PARK, SCO NO-402,
ROHTAK
HARYANA
3. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER,
PANCHAYAT BHAWAN,
SONEPAT
HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner : MR. B.S. SHARMA

For the Respondent : For the Respondents : Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate
For the Res. No. 3 : Mr. R.S. Rana, Addl. A.G., Haryana

Dated : 02 Sep 2014

ORDER
 PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5.2.2013 passed by the
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in
Appeal No. 67 of 2013 – Reliance General Insurance  Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sunita by which, while
dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner’s husband Suresh Kumar died in a road accident
on 1.6.2008 and claimed Rs.1,00,000/- from OPs under Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojna.  As claim was not
paid, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum.  OP No. 1 &
2/Respondent No. 1 & 2, resisted complaint and submitted that complainant has not complied with condition
of policy and has not submitted claim within time and further submitted that deceased was under an

about:blank 1/2
3/18/23, 12:08 PM about:blank

influence of liquor at the time of accident which is against the terms and conditions of the policy; hence,
claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  OP No. 3/Respondent No. 3 resisted
complaint and submitted that claim papers received from SDM/Nodal Officer were forwarded to OP No. 1
& 2 after completion of formalities and they are not liable and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned
District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint.  Appeal filed by the complainant was
dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been
filed.

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though claim was payable, learned District
forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State  Commission further committed error in
dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand,
learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 & 2 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is
in accordance with law; hence, revision petitioner be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3
supported petitioner.

5.      It is admitted case of the petitioner that death of her husband occurred on 1.6.2006 in road accident. It
is also not disputed that OP No. 3 remitted claim papers to OP No. 1 & 2 on 14.8.2009 after more than 14
months of death and complaint was filed on 4.10.2011 after 2 years and 4 months.  

5.      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 her husband to
OP No. 1&2 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, 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 4.10.2011 meaning thereby,
after 2 years 4 months 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.

6.      Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.
 
......................J
K.S. CHAUDHARI
PRESIDING MEMBER

about:blank 2/2