Prem Lata vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

N.K. Sodhi, J.—The Plaintiff''s husband was insured with the Life Insurance Corporation against Policy No. 13079436 dated 28.3.1992 in a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs. Her husband died on 30.5.1992 and when the Corporation did not satisfy her claim she instituted a suit for mandatory injunction directing the Corporation to release the insured amount against the policy. While the suit was pending, the Plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint so as to convert the suit into one for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2 lacs along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum. The application for amendment was contested by the Defendant-Respondent on the plea that the recovery of amount had become barred by time. On a consideration of the contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties, the trial Court has dismissed the application as per order dated 20.2.1997 holding that the amount sought to be recovered had become barred by time on the date when the application for amendment was filed. It is against this order of the trial Court that the present revision petition has been filed.

I have heard counsel for the Petitioner. It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff''s husband died on 30.5.1992 and that he stood insured with the Corporation in a sum of Rs. 2 lacs against policy No. 13079436. If the amount was not paid by the Corporation, the Plaintiff could institute a suit for the recovery of the amount within three years from the date when the cause of action arose to her i.e. the date of death of her husband. Instead of filing a suit for recovery, she filed a suit for mandatory injunction and it was on 19.2.1996 that the application out of which the present revision petition has arisen was filed seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint. On this date, the period of limitation for recovering the amount against the policy had already expired. This being so, the trial Court, in my opinion, was right in disallowing the prayer or amendment. No fault can, thus, be found with the impugned order nor has the Court committed any irregularity muchless any illegality warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.