DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No.786 of 2010]

1.                 Vipul Sharma son of Sh. Gian Chand

2.                 Naman Sharma (minor) aged 7 years,

3.                 Sarthak Sharma (minor) aged 3 years.

Both minor sons of Sh. Vipul Sharma being represented by their legal guardian Sh. Vipul Sharma, resident of H.No.1643, Near Old Kila, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainants.

Versus

1.                 Axis Bank Ltd., Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2.                 Axis Bank Ltd., Central Processing Unit 13, Corporate Park, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 through its Managing Director

3.                 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., H.O. Gesco Plaza, Airport Road, Yarawada, Pune-411006 (Maharastra).

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by: None for the complainant

                   Sh. Saurav Goyal, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2

                   Ms. Amarjit Kaur, Adv. proxy for Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Adv. for OP No.3

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Vipul Sharma and others have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following relief :

a)                 to make the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- jointly and severally to the complainant alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a.

b)                 to pay Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony, harassment, humiliation to the complainant.

c)                 pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and cost of the proceedings to be assessed by this Hon’ble Forum.”

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainants is that the Axis Bank (opposite parties No.1 & 2) launched a scheme to provide free of cost coverage of Rs.2,00,000/- on personal accident to its new account holders.  According to the complainants, Smt. Kavita Sharma (wife of complainant No.1 and mother of complainants No.2 & 3) opened an account (No.480010100016728) with opposite party No.1.  She was given a debit card on this account. It has been pleaded by the complainants that Smt. Kavita Sharma used the said debit card several times and made payments by using the debit card.  According to the complainants, unfortunately, on 23.5.2009, Smt. Kavita Sharma died in an accident.  Later on, the opposite parties were approached to release the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- being the sum assured on account of the accidental death.  However, despite repeated requests, the opposite parties have failed to release the said amount.  In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In the reply filed by Opposite parties No.1 & 2 it has been admitted that they launched a scheme for providing personal accident cover of Rs.2,00,000/- to its new account holders.  It has also been admitted that Smt. Kavita Sharma opened the account in question in their bank and that she died in an accident.  However, the stand of the opposite parties is that the insurance cover was subject to certain conditions which are enumerated below :

i)                   Account holder must have made a purchase transaction online or at merchant outlet.

ii)                Account holder must have maintained an average quarterly balance of Rs.5000/- in case of metro/urban centres & Rs.2500/- in case of semi-urban/rural centers in the last 2 quarters. 

According to the opposite parties, Smt. Kavita Sharma, did not use the debit card for  making purchases online or at merchant outlets.  It has been further stated that, in addition, it was the necessary condition of the policy that the nominee of the deceased/account holder had to inform the bank and insurance company about the death of account holder within the period of sixty days from the death of account holder and to submit the documents about the death of the card holder.  The case of the opposite parties is that the complainants did not comply with the above said conditions, hence they are not entitled to the release of the insurance cover as mentioned above. 

                   In these circumstances, according to the opposite parties, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.       

4.                           Opposite party No.3 in its separate written reply stated that cover of Rs.2 lacs was subject to terms and conditions of the policy.  According to the opposite party, in order to claim benefit of the policy, the customer had to comply with the conditions and should have used the Debit Card at any merchant establishment at least once prior to his/her death to activate the Personal Accident Insurance Cover.  It has been further stated that the customer was required to maintain an average quarterly balance (AQB) of Rs.5,000/- in the case of Metro/Urban Centres and Rs.2,500/- in the case of semi-urban/Rural Centres in the last two quarters and that the claim was to be reported within 60 days from the date of incident.  However, the complainants failed to comply with any of the requirements mentioned above.  According to the opposite party, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

5.                           On 25.7.2012, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared for the complainants.  Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4 (8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Act (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the complainant. 

6.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the documents on record.

7.                           The case of the opposite parties is that the amount of insurance cover could be released only if the conditions mentioned above were complied with. According to the opposite parties, Smt. Kavita Sharma did not use the debit card for online purchase or at any merchant outlet, as required under the conditions, for qualifying the complainants for release of the assured sum.  The statement of account has been placed on record by both the parties.  From the bare perusal of the statement of account, it is apparent that Smt. Kavita Sharma, deceased did not use the debit card for purchasing goods, either online or at any merchant outlet.  Thus, the complainants have failed to qualify for the release of the assured sum.  In these circumstances, the failure on the part of the opposite parties to release the assured sum does not amount to deficiency in service.

8.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

9.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

27.07.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg