BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
APPEAL NOS.3150/2016 & 1180/2017
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER
1. APPEAL NO.3150/2016
The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank, Chitradurga Branch,
Holalkere Road, Chitradurga … Appellant/s
(By Sri.U.S.Yogesh Kumar Associates, Advocates)
-Versus-
1. Smt.Ashwini.D. w/o Chetankumar,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at Vijayapura village,
Chitradurga Taluk,
Chitradurga-577 50
... Respondent/s
2. HDFC ERGO General
Insurance Company,
HDFC ERGO No.25/1,
Building No.2,
Shankarnarayana Building,
II Floor, MG Road, Bengaluru
(Respondent No.1-By Sri.N.N.Raju, Advocate)
(Respondent No.2-By Sri.H.S.Lingaraj, Advocate)
2. Appeal No.1180/2017
HDFC ERGO General
Insurance Company,
HDFC ERGO No.25/1, … Appellant/s
Shankarnarayana Building,
MG Road, Bengaluru-560 001
By its Manager
(By Sri.H.S.Lingaraj, Advocate)
-Versus-
1. Smt.Ashwini.D. W/o Chetankumar,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at Vijayapura village,
Chitradurga Taluk & District
... Respondent/s
2. The Branch Manager,
Indian Bank, Chitradurga Branch,
Holalkere Road, Chitradurga
By its Manager
(Respondent No.1-Notice served - absent)
(Respondent No.2-By Sri.U.S.Yogesh Kumar, Advocate)
COMMON ORDER
BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Both Opposite Parties in complaint No.58/2015 preferred these two Appeals against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Chitradurga which directed these appellants to pay jointly and severally Rs.1.00 lakh along with 9% interest to the complainant with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- and both are submits that the complainant is an account holder of Indian Bank (appellant in appeal No.3150/2016) who had obtained insurance policy under Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) on 15-10-2014. Such being the case, after opening the account, the bank had issued ATM card for transaction. Thereafterwards, it was reported that on 16-1-2015 the account holder/ Chethan Kumar who was the husband of the complainant died and being a nominee and legal representative, the complainant claimed for death benefit under the PMJDY scheme. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company i.e. appellant in appeal No.1180/2017 for the reasons that the ATM card was not utilized since 45 days prior to his death, hence declined to settle the claim.
2. Being aggrieved by the said repudiation, the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and filed a complaint. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed these appellant to pay the above said amount. In fact, these appellants are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant, since the insured had violated the terms and conditions and not utilized the ATM card within 45 days of prior to his death, which is mandatory as per the scheme. In spite of that the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed these appellant to pay the above said amount. The order passed by the District Commission lacks legality, hence prays for set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
3. Heard from both appellants in appeal nos.3150/2016 and 1180/2017.
4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order passed by the District consumer Commission and memorandum of appeals filed by the above appellants, we noticed that the complainant had opened SB account bearing No.6273909656 on 15-10-2014. At the time of opening the SB account, the bank had also issued ATM card as an alternative for transacting the SB account. It is also admitted that he had opted Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana scheme by paying a required premium and it was continued and the insurance coverage is Rs.1.00 lakh. Such being the case, the wife of the complainant had reported the death of her husband Chethan Kumar, who had account holder of Indian Bank/appellant in appeal no.3150/2016 stating that he died on 16-01-2015 and claimed for a compensation under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana scheme, since she is a legal representative, but both appellants have repudiated the claim for the reasons that the insured had not utilized the ATM card in spite provided to him and in order to settle the claim, the account should be operated through ATM, but the insured had not utilized the ATM card or transacted with the SB account hence declined to settle the claim. Aggrieved by the said, the complainant approached the District Commission and obtained the order which directed to these appellants to pay the assured amount along with compensation Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expense.
5. We are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. Usually ATM cards are issued to the account holders as an alternative method for transaction. In order to settle the claim under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana scheme, the operation of ATM card is not required, the scheme required the operation of SB account. Here we noticed both OPs/appellants have taken a defence that the insured had not utilized the ATM card for last 45 days prior to his death. The said ground is not justifiable to repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant. The OPs have not produced any materials before the District Commission to show that, the life assured had transacted the SB account or not, their only defence is that the ATM card was not utilized 45 days prior to his death the said defence is not justifiable. The complainant is legally entitled to get the claim under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana scheme. The District Commission after appreciating the evidence from both sides had rightly allowed the complaint and directed these appellants to pay the said amount. The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law, it does not requires any interference and no valid grounds urged before this Commission to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. Hence the appeals are dismissed and the order passed by the District Commission is confirmed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The appeals Nos.3150/2016 and 1180/2017 are hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
The impugned order 10-11-2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chitradurga in CC.No.58/2015 is confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainants.
The original of this order shall be kept in appeal No.3150/2016 and a copy thereof shall be kept in Appeal No.1180/2017.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member
