BITTAN DEVI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.2.2009 whereby the complaint of the appellant Smt. Bittan Devi has been dismissed as time barred. Her husband had obtained life insurance policy of Rs. 1,00,000 on 20.1.1999 and unfortunately he died on 24.1.2003 after he had fallen from the roof top of his house. The appellant preferred a claim with the Insurance Company on the basis of the insurance policy but her claim was repudiated vide letter dated 29.9.2004. The appellant filed her complaint on 9.1.2009 which was registered as complaint case No. 100/2009, The District Consumer Forum, Kannur Nagar dismissed the complaint on the ground of time limitation. As the complaint was not filed within two years from the date of the letter of repudiation having been received by her, the complaint was dismissed as barred by time.

(2.) MR . R.K. Gupta appearing on behalf of the appellant has offered an explanation for the delay in filing the complaint. According to him the appellant is an illiterate widow, who did not understand the implications of delay in filing the complaint. However, with reference to para 6 of her complaint, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that she had written two letters dated 16.2.2005 and 12.1.2006 to the Insurance Company and during this period of three years she was under an impression that her request for reconsideration and review of the decision would fetch some favourable result but the Insurance Company did not reply to these two letters. The legal notice of 26.11.2008 also went unheard. Although ignorance of law is no excuse yet some latitude could have been extended to the appellant who is a widow and also illiterate but the facts and circumstances available on record do not provide any reason to condone the delay of about 4 years. If she could write the two letters dated 16.2.2005 and 12.1.2006 and also could send a legal notice through her Counsel on 26.11.2008, she can very well be expected to have clearly understood the contents of the repudiation letter of 29.9.2004 whereby her claim was rejected and then being a person of ordinary prudence she could have filed a complaint too. On the face of recitals of the letter dated 29.9.2004 of the Insurance Company there remains hardly any doubt of her to be under any misconception and carry any misunderstanding that her request for review could favourably be considered by the Insurance Company. And, even the two letters copies whereof have not been produced before us were not written soon after the repudiation letter was received. We are, therefore, of the decisive opinion that the complainant appears to have forgotten and abandoned her claim during the four and a half years period after she had received the repudiation letter and perhaps thought to be contented with her lot. Since she failed to exercise her ordinary prudence of filing the complaint, the impugned decision that her complaint was barred by two years limitation as prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act seems to be sustainable. Accordingly, we hold that the explanation offered by the appellant for delay in filing the complaint is neither sufficient nor satisfactory so as to condone the delay.

(3.) IN the result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.