Dismissed

Ram Pyari v. the Branch Manager LIC and Ors.

Delhi HC14 Jul 2017RSA/177/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal under Section 100 CPC, the appellant challenged the dismissal of her suit for recovery of an LIC policy amount on the ground that it was time-barred. The court held that the suit, filed over three years after the company denied the claim, was correctly dismissed as barred by Article 44 of the Limitation Act, 1963. No substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

Regular Second Appeal dismissed; Judgment quashed and restored to lower courts.

Ram Pyari Vs the Branch Manager LIC and Ors. — Insurance | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

- RSA No. 177/2017

¶3

% 14^th July, 2017 RAM PYARI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kashif Khan, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

THE BRANCH MANAGER LIC AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kamal Mehta, Adv. for R-1 and 2.

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

¶7

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶8

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

¶9

CM No.24262/2017 (Exemption)

¶10

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

¶11

CM stands disposed of.

¶12

CM Nos. 24261/2017 (delay of 25 days in filing) & 24263/2017 (delay of 50 days in re-filing)

¶13

For the reasons stated in the applications, delays in filing and

¶14

re-filing are condoned as there is no opposition to the same.

¶15

CMs stand disposed of.

¶16

RSA No. 177/2017 Page 1 of 4

¶17

RSA No. 177/2017

¶18

This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial Court dated 1.10.2011 and the first appellate court dated 4.11.2016; by which the courts below have dismissed the suit for recovery filed by the appellant/plaintiff against Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC)/respondent for recovery of an amount of LIC policy on the ground that the suit for recovery filed for Rs.1,10,000/- (of which Rs.50,000/- was the principal amount), was barred by limitation.

¶19

It is an undisputed fact that the husband of the plaintiff expired on 12.5.1994 and he had taken out an LIC policy bearing no. S-1105884419 dated 28.11.1991 for Rs. 50,000/-. Though initially there were disputes between the parties as to whether the policy had or had not lapsed, trial court by relying upon the judgment in the case of

¶20

Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Basanti Devi AIR 2000 SC 43

¶21

held that if in case there is failure to pay insurance premium, that failure will not cause lapsing of the policy because the employer who had to pay insurance premium is an agent of the respondent/Life

¶22

RSA No. 177/2017 Page 2 of 4

¶23

Insurance Corporation of India and not of the employee who takes out a policy. The suit however was dismissed by applying Article 44 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and as per which once an insurance claim is denied, the suit had to be filed within three years of denial of the claim.

¶24

Article 44 of the Limitation Act reads as under:-

¶25

(a) On a policy of insurance Three years The date of the when the sum insured is death of the payable after proof of the death deceased, or has been given to or received where the claim by the insurers. on the policy is denied, either partly or wholly, the date of such denial. (b) On a policy of insurance The date of the when the sum insured is Three years occurrence payable after proof of the loss causing the loss, has been given to or received or where the claim by the insurers. on the policy is denied, either partly or wholly, the date of such denial.

¶26

The admitted facts are that when the appellant/plaintiff

¶27

after the death of her husband in the year 1994 sought for reimbursement under the LIC policy, this claim of the appellant/plaintiff was denied by the respondent/LIC vide its letter

¶28

RSA No. 177/2017 Page 3 of 4

¶29

dated 3.9.1996. This letter of the respondent/LIC is Ex.PW5/14. The subject suit was however filed on 5.8.2003 i.e much beyond the period of three years limitation which commenced on 3.9.1996.

¶30

The suit therefore has rightly been held to be barred by limitation by both the courts below.

¶31

No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.

¶32

JULY 14, 2017/ ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

¶33

RSA No. 177/2017 Page 4 of 4

Ram Pyari v. the Branch Manager LIC and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pyari v. the Branch Manager LIC and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Bhatia Vs Arjun Dass Thukral

Ram Mehar Vs Om Prakash etc.

Ashok Anand Vs Slum & J J (Now Knows as D U S I B)

Rajendra Katoch & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT & Ors.

O.P.Bhalla Vs Vijay Kumar & Ors.

Naveen Chikara & Anr. Vs State & Ors.