PRAVEEN SHEKH Vs. LIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 1.3.2005 of H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla dismissing appeal against the order dated 13.3.2002 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed as being barred by limitation.

(2.) Facts in so far as they are relevant for deciding this revision are these. Deen Mohamad Sheikh, husband of petitioner had purchased a policy of Rs. 30,000 on 16.2.1985 from respondent/opposite party-Insurance Company. The policy lapsed in the year 1987 due to non-payment of yearly premium. Petitioner alleged that policy was revived sometime in March, 1989. Life assured died on 22.2.1993. On claim not being settled despite service of legal notice dated 14.7.1995, the petitioner filed complaint which was contested by filing written version by the respondent. It was, inter alia, pleaded in written version that complaint was barred by limitation it having been filed after more than two years of the repudiation of claim conveyed through the letter dated 14.3.1996 sent by post on 29.3.1996. In the rejoinder filed to written version, the petitioner denied of having received of the respondent's letter dated 14.3.1996.

(3.) Controversy between the parties on issue of limitation mainly revolves around the service of repudiation letter dated 14.3.1996 on the petitioner. In support of the contention of this letter having been sent to the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Mittal for respondent has invited our attention to the extract from Despatch Register (copy at page 23). In support of further contention that records pertaining to claim is destroyed five years from close of financial year, our attention has been invited to the Memo of cross-appeal filed by the respondent against the order of District Forum dated 13.3.2002. It is pointed out that necessity for filing cross-appeal by the respondent arose because of certain remarks made by the District Forum in its order. According to Mr. Mittal, copy of repudiation letter dated 14.3.1996 was destroyed by the time the complaint came to be filed on 2.5.2001 by the petitioner. The order of District Forum notices that the official of respondent attending the Forum had brought the copy of postal receipt pertaining to the letter through which the repudiation letter was allegedly sent but copy of repudiation letter was not filed by the respondent. Bare reading of written version filed by the respondent (copy at pages 24 to 25) would show that it was not pleaded therein that the copy of the alleged letter 14.3.1996 had actually been weeded out. In the absence of letter, how could the respondent say that the letter listed at Sl. No. 3613 in the said extract of Despatch Register pertained to the repudiation letter dated 14.3.1996. Further in this extract, there are interpolations in the entries made in the column not only in regard to entry at Sl. No. 3613 but also subsequent entries at Sl. Nos. 3614, 3615 and 3616. Thus, the genuineness of the entry made at Sl. No. 3613 is not free from doubt. To be only noted that cross-appeal was got dismissed as withdrawn by the respondent on 4.12.2002. From aforesaid discussion, it must be follow that service of alleged letter dated 14.3.1996 is not proved on the petitioner. Complaint, thus, filed in May, 2001 was within limitation and the orders passed by Fora below deserve to be set aside being not legally sustainable and case remanded to the District Forum for complaint being decided afresh on merit.