Haryana

Karnal

CC/588/2021

Sulakhan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Kumar Sharma

04 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No. 588 of 2021

                                                      Date of instt.19.10.2021

                                                      Date of Decision:04.03.2024

 

Sulakhan Singh, aged 32 years son of late Shri Harminder Singh, resident of house no.95, VPO Kalsi Khalsa, tehsil Nilokheri, Karnal. Aadhar no.6444 2530 8878.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Axis Bank Limited, The Mall Road Branch, District Karnal through its Branch Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, old Bus Stand, Old G.T. Road, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

               

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Suman Singh……Member

 

Argued by:   Shri R.K. Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                     Shri Deepak Saini, counsel for the OP no.1.

                     Shri Pankaj Malhotra, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:                     

          

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the father of the complainant Shri Harminder Singh (since deceased) was having bank account with the aforesaid Branch of OP no.1. The father of complainant received injuries in a roadside accident on 10.11.2020 within the area of Police Station, Sector-32-33, Karnal and he succumbed to the same on 02.01.2021. His post mortem was conducted by the doctors of Civil Hospital, Karnal on 02.01.2021. An FIR was recorded in this regard. The complainant is  son of Harminder Singh, who was also having ATM card. The card was Axis Bank platinum Master Card. Prior to his death Harminder Singh was using the said ATM card regularly. The complainant being the son of deceased is entitled to receive the compensation of the aforesaid ATM card as per the policy. As per the policy of OP no.1, if the holder of the ATM Debit card dies in the accident, in that eventuality, the nominee of deceased is entitled for a claim amounting to Rs.10 lakhs. After the death of his father, complainant lodged the claim with the OP no.2 through OP no.1 and submitted all the relevant documents to the officials of the OP well within time. They assured the complainant that the matter will be settled as early as possible but after repeated requests and visits of the complainant, OPs did not settle the claim of complainant and lastly repudiated the same on the false and frivolous ground. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the father of complainant had died on 10.11.2020 and as per policy, the complainant was required to deposit all the relevant documents within a period of  50 days from the date of death but complainant has not deposited entire documents as per policy i.e. stamped with notary public, the complainant was requested to deposit the remaining short documents within a period of seven days, but even then the complainant has not deposited the short documents. The necessary documents which were required for the just and proper settlement of the claim, complainant has failed to deposit the said documents and ultimately on 07.12.2021, the claim was rejected by the insurance company on the ground of delay in submission of claim query documents as per policy terms and conditions. OP has no concern with the present case. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability. On merits, it is pleaded that as per information revealed by the OP no.1, the claim was allegedly filed with OP no.1 to be transmitted to the insurance company for settlement but the same was repudiated as the required documents were not submitted nor the claim was filed within the stipulated time of 50 day, as per the terms of the policy. The death allegedly took place on 10.11.2020 whereas the claim with incomplete documents was submitted to the OP no.1 on 07.12.2021. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of repudiation letter dated 03.02.2021 Ex.C2, copy of claim form Ex.C3, copy of final report Ex.C4, copy of medical record Ex.C5, copy of death certificate Ex.C6, copy of aadhar card of Harminder Singh Ex.C7, copy of ATM card Ex.C8, copy of FIR Ex.C9, copy of post mortem report Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 29.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Arun Goya; Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of terms and conditions of the debit card Ex.OP1, copy repudiation letter Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 06.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for OP no.2, on 12.09.2023 suffered a statement to the effect that written statement of OP no.2 be read as part and parcel of evidence on behalf of OP no.1.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that father of the complainant Shri Harminder Singh (since deceased) was having bank account with the OP no.1. On 10.11.2020, the father of complainant met with an accident and succumbed to the same on 02.01.2021. His post mortem was conducted by the doctors of Civil Hospital, Karnal on 02.01.2021. An FIR was recorded in this regard. The father of complainant was having Axis Bank platinum Master Card. As per the term and conditions of the policy of OP no.1, the holder of the ATM Debit card died in the accident, in that eventuality, the nominee of deceased is entitled for a claim amounting to Rs.10 lakhs. The complainant being the son of deceased is entitled to receive the compensation of the aforesaid ATM card. After the death of his father, complainant lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the relevant documents to the OPs but after repeated requests and visits of the complainant, OPs did not settle the claim of complainant and repudiated the same on the false and frivolous ground and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the father of complainant died on 10.11.2020 and as per policy, the complainant was required to deposit all the relevant documents within a period of  50 days from the date of death but complainant has not deposited entire documents and ultimately on 07.12.2021, the claim was rejected by the insurance company on the ground of delay in submission of claim query documents as per policy terms and conditions. OP has no concern with the present case and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant has neither submitted the required document and nor filed the claim within the stipulated time of 50 day, as per the terms of the policy. The death allegedly took place on 10.11.2020 whereas the claim with incomplete documents was submitted to the OP no.1 on 07.12.2021 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           Admittedly, the father of complainant (since deceased) had maintaining a saving bank account with the OP no.1. It is also admitted that OP bank had issued a platinum Master Card to deceased. It is also admitted that the card holder is insured for Rs.10,00,000/-in the event of his death. It is also admitted that father of complainant died in road side accident.

13.           The claim of the complainant has been denied by the OPs on the ground that complainant has not submitted the claim with the OP within stipulated period of 50 days from the date of death of insured.

14.           Now the question arises for consideration is that whether complainant lodged the claim with the OPs within stipulated period of 50 days or not?

15.           OPs have alleged that insurer  expired on 10.11.2020 and complainant has not submitted the claim alongwith documents within 50 days as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On the other hand, complainant has alleged that he has submitted all the documents to the OPs within stipulated period. The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant. To prove his case, the complainant has relied upon the death certificate Ex.C6, as per the death certificate, Harminder Singh died on 02.01.2021, not on 10.11.2020 as alleged by the OPs. As per letter Ex.C2 of OP no.1, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP no.2 i.e. insurance company on 03.02.2021 with the reason delay in submission of claim documents.  OP no.2 has placed on file view service request Ex.OP2. On perusal of the said document, there is a correspondence between the parties on 06.01.2021 and on 03.02.2021. It has been proved from the letter Ex.C2 and document Ex.OP2 that the complainant has submitted his claim within stipulated period as mentioned in the policy. Furthermore, OP no.2 has failed to disclose which ones documents have not been submitted by the complainant. OPs have relied upon only the terms and conditions of debit card Ex.OP1 and view service request Ex.OP2, except these documents no other correspondence has been placed on file by the OPs to prove that complainant has not submitted the required documents. Furthermore, as per the version of the OP no.1, the claim of the complainant has been rejected on 03.02.2021 whereas as per the version of the OP no.2, the claim of the complainant has been rejected on 07.12.2021. There is contradictory version of the OPs.  OPs have also considered the wrong date with regard to the death of the insured i.e. 10.11.2020 whereas actual date of death is 02.01.2021 and 10.11.2020 is date of accident not the date of death. It has been proved from the version of the OP no.1 and view service request Ex.OP2 that complainant has submitted the claim form alongwith documents within 32 days from the date of death of the insured. Hence, the plea taken by the OPs have no force. Moreover, it is also unbelievable an insured whose personal interest is involved for such huge amount why he will not supply the documents to the insurance company for getting his claim amount and will indulge himself in unwanted litigation.

16.           Further,  Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

17.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP no.2 (being insurer) while repudiating the claim of complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

18.           The insured amount under the Personal Accident Insurance cover in the platinum Master Card is Rs.10,00,000/-. This fact is not denied by the OPs.

19.           Present complaint has been filed by the complainant being a son of deceased Harminder Singh without impleading the other LRs. In the entire pleading, it is nowhere mentioned the complainant is only the legal heir of Harminder Singh. Hence, complainant alongwith others LRs of Harminder Singh, if any, are entitled for the insured amount alongwith interest, compensation for mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

20.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPno.2(being insurer) to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. ten lakhs only) sum insured alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.19.10.2021 till its realization to the complainant and other LRs of Harminder Singh, if any, in equal share. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- toward the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 04.03.2024.        

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                     Member                       Member