Delhi High Court
Ram Pyari vs The Branch Manager Lic And Ors on 14 July, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No. 177/2017
% 14th July, 2017
RAM PYARI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kashif Khan, Adv.
versus
THE BRANCH MANAGER LIC AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kamal Mehta, Adv. for R-1
and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No.24262/2017 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
CM Nos. 24261/2017 (delay of 25 days in filing) & 24263/2017
(delay of 50 days in re-filing)
For the reasons stated in the applications, delays in filing and
re-filing are condoned as there is no opposition to the same.
CMs stand disposed of.
RSA No. 177/2017
1. 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.
2. 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
Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Basanti Devi AIR 2000 SC 43
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
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.
3. Article 44 of the Limitation Act reads as under:-
44. (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.
4. The admitted facts are that when the appellant/plaintiff
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
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.
5. The suit therefore has rightly been held to be barred by
limitation by both the courts below.
6. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.
JULY 14, 2017/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
