Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/506/2015

Baljit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Parvinder Singh Ahluwalia Adv.

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	506 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	10.09.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	07.12.2016

 

 

 

 

1]  Baljit Kaur wife of Late Jagjit Singh,

2]  Fatehbeer Singh s/o Late Jagjit Singh,

3]  Amandeep Kaur d/o Late Jagjit Singh,

All residents of Village Shiekpura, Distt. S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. 

             …..Complainants

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd., through its Branch Manager, having Branch Office at Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

….. Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         MRS.RAVINDER SINGH            MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      : Sh.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate 

 

For Opposite Party(s)   : Sh.Saurav Goyal, Advocate

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainants are legal heirs of late Sh.Jagjit Singh, who was serving in Chandigarh Police as Constable and died in an accident on 01.10.2013. It is averred that deceased Jagjit Singh was holding a Salary Account NO.302010100136112 with the OP Bank (Ann.C-3) and while opening the account, he was offered a Personal Accidental Death Policy to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs in case he uses the ATM cum Debit Card of the OP Bank.  It is also averred that the said offer was accepted and the deceased Sh.Jagjit Singh was issued ATM cum Debit Card No.4215 7230 2003 4849, which was used by him regularly before his death. It is submitted that no terms or conditions were issued or given to Jagjit Singh but the personal accidental policy was inbuilt offer of ATM cum Debit Card issued by the Opposite Party. It is also submitted after the death of Sh.Jagjit Singh in an accident on 01.10.2013, the complainants being his legal heirs made claim with the Opposite Party on 24.10.2013 under the policy and supplyed all requisite documents but the Opposite Party did not close the account of deceased Sh.Jagjit Singh till 03.9.2015 and also declined the claim filed by the complainants.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above acts & conducts of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service.

 

2]       The Opposite party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complaint is time barred and bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd.  It is stated that the role of the answering Opposite Party was only of a Corporate agent/facilitator.  It is pleaded that the Opposite Party had an agreement with New India Assurance Company Ltd. in which the said company is providing benefit of accidental death claim to the debit card holders of the OP Bank.          It is also pleaded that in case of any claim for the said accidental scheme benefit in case of death, the legal heirs of the deceased/cardholder had to fulfill certain formalities by submitting the claim form and requisite documents etc.  It is denied that the only condition for valid claim for personal accident death claim, was the use of ATM cum Debit Card and no other terms & conditions were given to late Sh.Jagjit Singh.  It is further pleaded that since the legal heirs of deceased cardholder Sh.Jagjit Singh failed to supply the copy of driving license for driving two wheeler, the claim was thus declined as “No Claim” for non-submission of two wheeler driving license vide letter dated 12.3.2014 (Ann.R-1).  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainants thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that made in reply. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The present complaint is filed by the legal heirs of deceased Sh.Jagjit Singh (his wife, son and daughter), who was serving in Chandigarh Police as Constable; who got opened his Salary Account in the bank of Opposite Party vide Account NO.302010100136112.  Undisputedly, while opening the account, late Sh.Jagjit Singh was offered a ‘Personal Accidental Death Policy’ to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs in case he uses the ATM cum Debit Card of the Opposite Party. The offer was accepted and deceased Sh.Jagjit Singh was issued ATM cum Debit Card No.4215 7230 2003 4849, which was extensively used thereafter.  It is submitted that the use of that ATM cum Debit Card was the condition precedent attached to the scheme for claiming the amount of policy in case of death of account holder in an accident.  It is further submitted that unfortunately Sh.Jagjit Singh (account holder), died in an accident on 01.10.2013 and after his death, his legal heirs i.e. wife, son and daughter, who are the complainants in the present complaint, on 24.10.2013 approached the Opposite Party to claim the amount under the policy and they lodged due claim by supplying all requisite documents to the Opposite Party. The complainants have claimed that despite of the intimation about the death of cardholder Sh.Jagjit Singh on 01.10.2013, the OPs did not close the account of deceased Sh.Jagjit Singh till 03.9.2015 and also they wrongly declined the claim of the accidental policy stating that it has to be claimed within 60 days from the date of death of the deceased cardholder. 

 

7]       On the contrary, the Opposite Party denied any of its liability to pay the claim claiming that the policy in question was issued by M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd. and only that insurance company is the necessary party in the present complaint and thus the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party.  Further they took the objection that the present complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation.  It is further claimed that the role of the Opposite Party is only of a Corporate agent/facilitator. 

 

8]       The objection with regard to the complaint being barred by time is not tenable as the claim of the complainants was rejected on 12.3.2014 and the present complaint has been filed on 10.9.2015 i.e. within two years limitation period as provided under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

9]       The another objection raised by the Opposite Party that they are only the proforma party in the present complaint and the claim, if any, lies is against the New India Assurance Company Limited, for whom they acted as Agent/Facilitator, is not sustainable for the simple reason that there is no privity of contract between the said insurance company and the deceased cardholder.  So, the claim in the present complaint can be enforced and would lie against the Opposite Party/Bank as the deceased cardholder had no direct claim against the said insurance company as there was no privity of contract between the cardholder and insurance company.

 

10]      In continuation to the above discussion, it is pertinent to consider the rejection letter issued by the Insurance Company dated 12.3.2014 (Ann.R-1), the relevant contents of which are reproduced as under:-

“On scrutiny of the claim papers, it is observed that, at the time accident, the deceased was driving two-wheeler (Bajaj     CT-100) without having a valid driving license, as confirmed on 07.03.2014 (He has Driving license of Four-wheeler only).  Driving any two wheelers without having a valid Driving license is unlawful.

 

In view of the above, we regret our inability to settle the claim under Exclusion 3.3 of Section II of our Policy contract and close the file as “NO CLAIM” and as such we are not calling for other required documents.”

 

 

         The perusal of the above contents reveals that the claim of the complainants was denied for the reason that the deceased cardholder was not holding two wheeler driving licence, which falls under Exclusion 3.3 of Section 2 of the policy contract.  To our utter surprise, no such policy document has been placed on record by the Opposite Party and none of the document on record pertaining to the account, states that the deceased cardholder was ever apprised about any of the terms & conditions of the policy or was ever issued the policy document.  So, the claim of the complainants cannot be rejected taking recourse to the exclusion clause Section 2 of the policy document, which was never ever supplied to the deceased cardholder and has not been placed on record by the Opposite Party for the reasons best known to it.

 

11]      The Opposite Party also admitted that they had an agreement with New India Assurance Company Ltd. whereby it provides benefit of accidental death claim to the debit card account holders of the OP Bank and in case of any claim for the said accidental scheme benefit in case of accidental death, the legal heirs of the deceased/cardholder had to fulfill certain formalities by submitting the claim form and requisite documents etc.  The Opposite Party had wrongly denied that only condition for valid claim for personal accident death claim was the use of ATM cum Debit Card and terms & conditions were given to late Sh.Jagjit Singh. In our considered opinion, on the death of the deceased cardholder, the OP Bank was liable to fulfill its promise by making payment of the assured amount of Rs.5.00 lacs and then to get it released from the concerned insurance company. By not fulfilling the commitment, the OP has rendered deficient services and also are liable for the deficient services on account of delaying the closure of the account of the deceased cardholder Sh.Jagjit Singh and for their discrepancy, the bank account of the deceased cardholder Sh.Jagjit Singh remained opened for more than one year.

 

12]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party is proved. Therefore, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the Opposite party. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the Opposite Party is directed as under:-

 

1. To pay the sum assured amount of Rs.5.00 lacs to the complainants;

 

2. To pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainants on account of deficient service;

 

3. To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/-.

 

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum on amount as mentioned at sub-para (a) & (b) from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 10.9.2015 till realization, apart from complying with direction as at sub-para (c) above.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

7^th December, 2016                                                                                                                                                                 Sd/-  

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                Sd/-

          (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER 

 

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH

MEMBER