West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/14/134

Satinath Banerjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Manager, Bajaj Allianz INS Co. Ltd ,2.Manager, United Bank of India, Lokpara Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr Acharya

19 Jun 2018

ORDER

It is the case of the complainants Satinath Banerjee and others, in brief, is that the complainant Satinath Banerjee and his daughter opened on S.B A/c No. 1376010104971 before the O.P No.2.

            It is the further case of the complainant that there was an insurance policy for the new and existing account holders in the name of United India Surakshya Yojona in association with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. Benefit/Insurance coverage of Rs. 1 lakh for accidental death and Rs. 1.25 lakh for permanent total disability.

            That U.S.Y premium was deducted against the policy being No. 6-14-2420-6401-00000025 from the said S.B A/c No. in the name of joint account holder namely complainant Satinath Banerjee and his daughter Chandana Banerjee.

            It is the further case of the complainants that unfortunately his daughter and joint account holder Chandana had died on 03.03.2014 due to a road traffic accident at Suri in front of Sri Ram Krishna Silpa Vidyapith. P.M. was held on her body. Police was informed and police started Suri P.S. Case No. 58/14 dated 03.03.14 u/s 279/337/338/427/304 I.P.C and the case was ended in charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle.

            It is the further case of the complainants that being one of the joint account holder of the said S.B A/c and beneficiary of deceased Chandana, who was divorcee submitted the relevant document for settling the death claim of the deceased before the O.Ps. But the O.Ps did not consider his claim rather repudiated the claim by sending letter dated 28.04.14.

            It is the next case of the complainants that act of the O.Ps are nothing but deficiency in service. Hence this suit for passing an order directing the O.Ps to pay Rs. 1 lakh as death claim of deceased

 

Chandana with 15% interest per annum since 03.03.14 with compensation of Rs. 50000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

            O.P No.1 Bajaj Allianz Ins. Co. Ltd. has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complainant contending inter alia that the complainant has no locus standi to file the case and the case is not maintainable.

            It is the further case of the O.P No.1 that admittedly the complainant have opened a S.B A/c in the Bank of the O.P No.2 United Bank of India, Lokpara branch. That the O.P No.2 had a tie up with O.P No. 1 for insurance for a personal accident policy for the customers of the O.P No.2, who would deduct the premium  amount of the insurance policy from their respective bank accounts.

            It is the further case of the O.P No.1 that the premium amount was deducted only in the name of the complainant Satinath Banerjee i.e. a/c holder No.1. No premium was deducted against the deceased Chandana Banerjee. So, the repudiation made by the O.P No.2 is correct.

            It is the further case of the O.P No.1 that the deceased Chandana was divorcee and had died living behind minor son Subha Mukherjee. She was governed by Hindu Succession Act. So, the present complainant being her father is not entitled to get any compensation. Ultimately O.P No.1 prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

            The O.P No.2 United Bank of India has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter alia that the complainant has no cause of action to being this case and the present case is not maintainable.

            It is the specific case of the O.P No.2 that they purchase an insurance policy under United Surakshya Yojona (USY scheme) from O.P No.1 Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. for the insurance converge of its account holder and accordingly O.P No.2 is the master policy holder of the said policy.

            It is the further case of the O.P No.2 that in the present case premium of each account holder is Rs. 17/- per year and accordingly on 26.09.13 Rs. 17/- was paid for the coverage of the said insurance policy under the aforesaid USY for the period 2013-14. On 25.09.14 Rs. 17/- was paid for the coverage of said insurance policy under the said USY for the period 2014-15.

            It is the further case of the O.P No.2 that in the present case account was joint account and account holder’s premium has been paid from there and the complainant No.1 Satinath Banerjee was only covered under the said scheme and this case joint holder i.e. deceased Chandana Banerjee was not covered under the said policy as her premium was not duly paid and accordingly beneficiary / legal heirs are not entitled to get any compensation under the said policy for her death.

            It is the next case of the O.P No.2 that as per system and procedure O.P No.2 deducted Rs. 17/- P.A. from the first account holder of all existing accounts under the said insurance scheme and in case of accounts maintained by the joint holder, the premium of joint holder only deducted if the account holders

 

and duly intimated to the Bank Authority and paid premium accordingly. But in the instant case none of the account holders opted for and intimated to the O.P No.2 Bank to deducted for the joint holders/deceased Chandana Banerjee.

            Lastly the O.P No. 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.

Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant No.1 Satinath Banerjee has been examined as PW1 and also filed some documents. He was also cross examined by filing questionnaires.

One Arijit Chakrabority, Manager of O.P No.1 Bajaj Allianz is examined as OPW 1.

O.P No.2 Arup Saha, Br. Manager of O.P No.2 both of them are cross examined by way of filing questionnaires. Both of them have also filed documents.

 Heard argument both sides.

Point No.1:: Evidently the complainant Satinath Banerjee and his daughter opened on S.B A/c No. 1376010104971 before the O.P No.2.

So, the complainant No. 1 Satinath Banerjee and complainant No.2 Subha Mukherjee(as legal heir of deceased Chandana Banerjee) are consumer U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.

Point No.2:: O.P No. 1 has Office within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 1,55,000/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-.

So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4:: Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

            The complainant Satinath Banerjee and others in their complaint and evidence stated that the complainant Satinath Banerjee and his daughter opened on S.B A/c No. 1376010104971 before the O.P No.2. Passbook of the complainant and his daughter shows that they opened such account.

            The complainant No.1 as P.W.1 further stated that there was an insurance policy for the new and existing account holders in the name of United India Surakshya Yojona in association with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. Benefit/Insurance coverage of Rs. 1 lakh for accidental death and Rs. 1.25 lakh for permanent total disability.

            Original poster issued by the O.P No.2 UBI shows that United Surakshya Yojona was lunched by

 

O.P No.2 UBI in association with O.P No.1 Bajaj Allianz gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. on payment of Rs. 17/- P.A as premium and said insurance was covered Rs. 1 lakh for accidental death and Rs 1.25 Lakh for total disability in respect of new and existing account holders and upto 80 years of age are eligible.

            P.W.1 Satinath Banerjee further stated that U.S.Y premium was deducted against the policy being No. 6-14-2420-6401-00000025 from the said S.B A/c No. in the name of joint account holder namely complainant Satinath Banerjee and his daughter Chandana Banerjee.

            Passbook of Satinath Banerjee and Chandana Banerjee shows that on 26.09.13 and 25.09.14 Rs. 17/- each was deducted from the said account as the premium of policy in question.

            P.W.1 Satinath Banerjee further stated that unfortunately his daughter and joint account holder Chandana had died on 03.03.2014 due to a road traffic accident at Suri in front of Sri Ram Krishna Silpa Vidyapith. P.M. was held on her body. Police was informed and police started Suri P.S. Case No. 58/14 dated 03.03.14 u/s 279/337/338/427/304 I.P.C and the case was ended in charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle.

            Copy of the formal FIR, FIR, Charge Sheet and death certificate show that Chandana Banerjee had died due to road traffic accident.

            So, in the present case admittedly there was a joint account of the complainant No.1 Satinath Banerjee and his deceased daughter Chandana and Chandana had died due to motor accident and Rs. 17/- P.A. was paid from the said joint account for Surakshya Yojona Policy.

            But it is the case of the O.P No.2 that in the present case account was joint account and account holder’s premium has been paid from there and the complainant No.1 Satinath Banerjee was only covered under the said scheme and in this case joint holder i.e. deceased Chandana Banerjee was not covered under the said policy as her premium was not duly paid and accordingly beneficiary / legal heirs are not entitled to get any compensation under the said policy for her death.

            In the present case regarding Surakshya Yojona in question only document is forthcoming before the Forum is a poster issued by O.P No.2 Bank Authority which shows that the said policy was launched by the Bank in association with O.P No.1 Insurance Co. on payment of Rs.17/- P.A.

            But there is no specific mentioned that how much premium is to be paid in case of joint account holders.

            O.P No.2 Bank in their written version claim that as per system and procedure O.P No.2 deducted Rs. 17/- P.A. from the first account holder of all existing accounts under the said insurance scheme and in case of accounts maintained by the joint holder, the premium of joint holder only deducted if the account holders opted for and duly intimated to the Bank Authority and paid premium accordingly. But in the instant case none of the account holders opted for and intimated to the O.P No.2 Bank to deduct for the joint holders/deceased Chandana Banerjee.

         

But the O.P No.2 Bank has not produced any scrap of paper in support of their said contention.

            During hearing of argument Ld. Advocate/Agent of the O.P No.2 submitted that in case of joint account holder, only 1^st account holder of the account can get benefit of such policy and premium of Rs. 17/- has been deducted for only first account holder.

            In support of his contention he submitted statement of accounts of (1) Nikhil Krishna Banerjee, (2) Netai Das, (3) Chaina Bhandari, (4) Sri Sisir Das, (5) Nemai Das, (6) Provat Dasgupta, (7) Narayan Konai, (8) Bhagabati Bagdi, (9) Dhiren Mondal, (10) Jagganath Mondal, (11) Noor Mahammad Sk.(12) Sanjay Kr.saha, (13) Niami Ch. Bagdi, (14) Profulla Bagdi, (15) Satinath Banerjee and Chandana Banerjee (16) Durgapada Pal, Latika Pal.

            We find from of the account of Sisir Das, Nemai Das, Provat Dasgupta, Narayan Konai, Bhagabati Bagdi, Dhiren Mondal, Jagannath Mondal, Sanjoy Saha, Nemai Ch. Bagdi and Profulla Bagdi that those Accounts are all single account.

            Rs. 17/- each was deducted from their respective account showing their name as “cust name”.

            Regarding account of Nikhil Krishna Banerjee, Netai Das, Chandana Bagdi and Noor Md. Sk. we also find that said accounts are also single accounts and Rs. 17/- each was deducted from their respective account showing their name as “cust name”.

            We find from those computer print statement of account that by using red-ink pen in respect of account of Nikhil Kr. Banerjee name of Sakshi Gopal Mondal was shown as joint account holders. In respect of Netai Chandra Das name of Provhati Das was shown as joint account holder. Regarding Chaina Bhandari name of Deb Kanta Bhandari was shown as joint account holders. In respect of Noor Md. Sk. name of Golebanu Bibi was shown as joint account holder.

We failed to understand that in such computer print statement how hand writing notes find place without any seal and signature.

            We further find from the statement of joint account holders namely (1) Durgapada Pal and Latika Pal and (2) Satinath Banerjee and Chandana Banerjee that name of the both account holders i.e. (1) Durgapada Pal and Latika Pal and (2) Satinath Banerjee and Chandana Banerjee are duly shown as “customer name”.

            So, on the basis of above made discussion in no way it can be said that only 1^st account holder was covered under the said policy and premum was deducted only for benefit of him.

            In their written argument O.P No.2 submitted that claim was rightly repudiated as per terms and condition of the instant master policy (i.e. only 1^st account holder Satinath Banerjee is covered by the instant policy).

            But no such instant policy is forthcoming before this Forum.

            No proposal form is also forthcoming to show that only 1^st account holder Satinath was covered

 

under the said insurance.

            During hearing of the argument, Ld. Advocate/Agent of the O.Ps submitted that in the present consumer complaint case onus is upon the complainant to prove his case by producing cogent evidence.

            Certainly alike civil cases in consumer cases also onus is upon the complainant to prove his case.

            But in view of the ruling reported in AIR 1968(Supreme Court) 1413; Party in possession of best documents, even no onus of proof on him, still adverse presumption is to be drawn, if withholds them.

            We find in the present case the O.Ps withhold all material documents and in view of the above cited ruling an adverse presumption may be drawn against them.

            We find that it is the case of O.Ps that the deceased Chandana was divorcee and had died living behind minor son Subha Mukherjee. She was governed by Hindu Succession Act. So, the present complainant being her father is not entitled to get any compensation.

            But we find that during pendency of the case minor son of deceased Chandana viz. Subha Mukherjee has been made party to the case as complainant No.2 and he has been represented by his custodian/Grand-father complainant No.1 Satinath Banerjee.

            So, at this stage there is no impediment to pass any award in favour of the complainant No.2 Subha Mukherjee.

            Considering overall matter into consideration and material on record we find the complainants have been able to prove their case that the O.Ps have illegally repudiated the claim of the complainants by non-releasing accidental death benefit of Rs. 1 Lakh regarding deceased Chandana Banerjee.

            Thus both the points are decided in favour of the complainants.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 134/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs 2000/-.

            The O.Ps are directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as death claim of deceased Chandana Banerjee with 6% interest P.A since 03.03.2014 till realization and they are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

            All such payments are to be made to complainant No.2 minor Subha Mukherjee represented by his custodian/Grand-Father complainant No.1 Satinath Banerjee within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

            The complainant No.1 Satinath Banerjee is not entitled to get any relief from this case.  

             Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.