Delhi High Court
Kulbhushan Madan vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 27 October, 2017
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10550/2016
KULBHUSHAN MADAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr Sumit Kumar, Mr Prakash Kaushik
and Mr Rabindra nanda, Advocates.
versus
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION
OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr Sanjay Rawat, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 27.10.2017
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as
under:-
"Issue direction/order in nature of writ of Mandamus
directing the respondent corporation to conduct a proper and
thorough time bound investigation in the complaint Dated
19/03/2007, made by the petitioner, regarding cheating and
fraud of Rupees 40 Lacs."
2. The petitioner states that he is working with respondent no.1
(hereafter „the LIC‟) as a Development Officer. It is the petitioner's case that
in the month of January, 2006 one Mr Anil Kumar Malik, who was then
posted as a Development Officer at LIC's branch at Nehru Palace, New
Delhi had approached the petitioner to subscribe to new policies. The
petitioner had thereafter taken six policies for a premium of `5 lakhs each
through Mr Anil Kumar Malik. The petitioner claims that in May, 2006 Mr
Anil Kumar Malik approached the petitioner for top-up of the policies and,
accordingly, the petitioner issued a cheque of `40 lakhs in favour of LIC and
the same was handed over to Sh Anil Kumar Malik. The said cheque was
encashed from the petitioner's account on 27.05.2006.
3. Mr Anil Kumar Malik was found dead near railway tracks at Brar
Square Naraina, New Delhi on 01.02.2007. The petitioner states that there
were rumours that Mr Anil Kumar Malik had committed several frauds
running into crores of rupees in collusion with LIC officials.
4. The petitioner thereafter approached LIC's branch at Nehru Palace
and found that the cheque of `40 lakhs issued by the petitioner had been
encashed towards a policy in the name of Mr Anil Kumar Malik, which had
been en-cashed subsequently. In this manner, Mr Anil Kumar Malik had
cheated the petitioner of the sum of `40 lakhs.
5. The petitioner claims that he made several complaints to LIC
demanding payment of the said sum of `40 lakhs but his complaints were
not addressed. It is the petitioner's case that as per LIC's practice and
procedure, it does not accept third party cheques towards policies issued by
it; in other words, the cheque received by LIC is required to be credited to
the account (or towards the policy) of the payer and not any third party. The
petitioner claims that this procedure had been subverted in the present case
and, therefore, LIC is responsible to make good the loss suffered by the
petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents admits that it is LIC's policy
not to accept third party cheques. He, however, submits that both the
petitioner and Mr Anil Kumar Malik were employees of LIC and were
known to each other; they had inter se managed with the LIC that
petitioner's cheque be deposited towards the policy taken out by Mr Anil
Kumar Malik. He also referred to certain communications on record which
indicates that the petitioner had acknowledged that he had lent money to Mr
Anil Kumar Malik. He submits that the entire case put up by the petitioner
that the sum of `40 lakhs was paid by him towards his policies was false and
not substantiated.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had countered the aforesaid
submissions by stating that the money lent by the petitioner to Mr Anil
Kumar Malik were separate transactions. He further submitted that the
petitioner had filed separate suits against heirs of Mr Anil Kumar Malik
after his demise and had obtained decrees for the amounts lent by the
petitioner.
8. It is clear from the narration of the facts that Mr Anil Kumar Malik
would be answerable for the sum of `40 lakhs which were utilized by him
for taking a policy. It is further material to note that although the petitioner
had instituted actions against Anil Kumar Malik for recovery of the dues
owed by him to the petitioner, he had not instituted any action for recovery
of the sum of `40 lakhs.
9. It is also plainly evident that the petitioner's claim for the sum of `40
lakhs is hopelessly barred by limitation. The cause of action had arisen in
2006 and the present petition has been filed almost ten years thereafter. In
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai & Ors. AIR 1964 SC
1006, the Supreme Court held a s under:
"21. ........the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as
such apply to the granting of relief under Art. 226. It
appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by
the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit
in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to
be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy
under Art. 226 can be measured. The Court may consider
the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of
limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but
where the delay is more than this period, it will almost
always be proper for the court to hold that it is
unreasonable."
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner
did not initiate any action against LIC at the material time as he was
apprehensive that officials of LIC would not approve of such action and the
petitioner would incur their wrath. He further submitted that the petitioner
continued to correspond with LIC to agitate his grievance. This Court is not
persuaded to accept the above explanation. The sum of `40 lakhs was a
significantly large sum and the delay on the part of the petitioner in
approaching this Court or instituting an appropriate action is not excusable.
11. In view of the fact that (i) the petitioner had refrained from initiating
any action against Mr Malik (his heirs) in respect of the amount claimed to
have been misappropriated by him; (ii) that the present petition involves
disputed questions of fact; and (iii) that the petition is hopelessly delayed,
this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. The petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
OCTOBER 27, 2017
pkv
