BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.366 of 2019
Date of Institution: 11.07.2019
Date of Decision : 31.10.2023
- Saroj aged about 63 years wife of Shri Vijay Modi
- Vijay Modi, aged about 64 years son of Shri Radhey Sham Singla, both residents of Neem Wali Gali, Ward No.11, Water Works Road, Kalanwali, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus
- Axis Bank Ltd. village Kalanwali, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
- Axis Bank Ltd. Trishul, 3rd Floor, Opposite Samartheshwar Temple, Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad- 380006 through its M.D./ Authorized person.
- New India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, 112700, 2nd Floor, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Points, Mumbai- 400021 through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.
Sh. Kapil Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops) with the averments that son of complainants namely Shri Rohit Singla was the holder of an Easy Access Saving Account with the ops no.1 and 2 at their branch at Kalanwali having account No. 914010025098863 having customer ID No. 853070956. He was also issued a debit card bearing No. 4902239018222138 by ops no.1 and 2. The son of complainants got opened the above said account with op no.1 on 04.07.2014 and at that time ops provided a welcome kit containing debit/ ATM card, cheque book, information on getting started, important terms and conditions and code of commitment vide their forwarding letter dated 04.07.2014. It is further averred that ops no.1 and 2 assured the son of complainants to provide various facilities as mentioned in the forwarding letter including insurance of the account holder and as per their terms and conditions, the account holder had to use the ATM card issued by ops at least once in six months for the accidental insurance and also assured that account holder shall remain insured if the above conditions are complied with by him. That since the day of opening the account as well as issuance of the ATM card etc., to their son, he kept on using and maintaining the same regularly as per the terms and conditions and the ops no.1 and 2 are also regularly deducting the chargeable premium for the insurance of the account holder from his account time to time and kept the account holder insured with op no.3. However, the ops time to time replaced the ATM card/ Debit card of the son of complainants of their own as per instructions of the Reserve Bank of India as well as their own guidelines. Their son also maintained the requisite balance in his aforesaid bank account.
2. It is further averred that on 2.12.2018, son of complainants came to Sirsa from Kalanwali for some work and on the same day after being free from the work, he was returning back to Kalanwali by train during night, but he did not reach Kalanwali till morning and his mobile was also not reachable. Unfortunately early morning, complainants received information that their son Rohit Singla had sustained multiple injuries on his person in a railway accident and immediately after receipt of information, they reached at the spot where they found that their son had been taken to Civil Hospital Sirsa by the police. On 3.12.2018 he was declared to be dead by the doctors on account of injuries received by him. Post mortem examination was also conducted on his body on 3.12.2018 and the police also conducted enquiry in this regard and also found the deceased to be dead on account of injuries received by him in the railway accident. It is further averred that he was only son of the complainants and they were full dependent upon his earnings as he was running a Depot of Government of Haryana. It is further averred that deceased Rohit prior to his death withdrawn an amount of Rs.1000/- from his aforesaid bank account on 04.06.2018 through ATM at Kalanwali which transaction is within the statutory period of six months till date of accidental death of the deceased and thus as per the terms and conditions, the complainants being the parents of the deceased are entitled to receive the insured amount of Rs. five lacs from ops. That complainants contacted the op no.1 and requested to indemnify their claim under the said insurance policy but the ops refused to indemnify the claim to be beyond the conditions of the policy and have issued a repudiation letter dated 11.03.2019 in this regard which is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy itself and same has been issued in order to escape from their liability. It is further averred that complainants contacted the ops and requested them to withdraw the repudiation letter and to indemnify their claim but they did not listen them and refused to admit their claim. The act and conduct on the part of ops comes under the ambit of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which complainants have suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Ops no.1 and 2 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that Sh. Rohit Singla (now deceased) has not used/ operated his debit card in last 180 days till his death. Hence, his legal heirs are not entitled for insurance claim on his death. As per condition on debit card availed by Sh. Rohit Singla holder of said card had to use the POS transactions at least once in last 180 days but he had not used said card. It is further submitted that complainants contacted with op no.1 and op has forwarded their case but higher authorities of the bank have rejected the claim of complainant as their case could not fulfill the requirement of policy of debit card. That claim of complainants have been rightly rejected by the bank. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.3 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, suppression of true and material facts, estoppal and that Mr. Rohit Singla the alleged account holder of account with ops no.1 and 2 bank was never got insured by ops no.1 and 2 bank with answering op. The ops no.1 and 2 did not purchase any alleged insurance policy from answering op and no such insurance policy has been provided by ops no.1 and 2 to the answering op. It is further submitted that no consumer dispute is made out between the parties and there was/is no deficiency in service on the part of answering op towards the complainants and complaint is bad for non compliance of provisions of Section 12 (c) of the Act. On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainants in evidence have tendered affidavit of complainant Sh. Vijay Modi as Ex.C1, welcome letter dated 04.07.2014 Ex.C2, cutting of newspaper Ex.C3, post mortem report of deceased Rohit Ex.C4, inquest proceeding conducted by police Ex.C5, death certificate Ex.C6, fard jamatalashi Ex.C7, aadhar cards Ex.C8, Ex.C9, PAN card of complainant Vijay Kumar Ex.C10 and repudiation letter dated 11.03.2019 Ex.C11.
6. On the other hand, op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Ram Kumar Indora, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R1. Ops no.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Mehta, Manager as Ex. R2/A and copies of documents i.e. repudiation letter dated 11.03.2019 Ex.R3 and terms and conditions of debit card Ex.R4.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. Admittedly the son of complainants namely Rohit Singla now deceased was issued Debit/ ATM card by ops no.1 and 2 on 04.07.2014 which fact is evident from letter dated 04.07.2014 Ex.C2. The complainants claimed insurance claim amount of Rs. five lacs from ops on account of accidental death of their son Rohit Singla on 03.12.2018 as per accident insurance coverage on the said ATM card. The authorities of ops no.1 and 2 have rejected the claim of complainants vide repudiation letter dated 11.03.2019 and the reason mentioned in the said letter is that “As per the bank’s policy for successful entitlement of insurance claim on debit card in case of accidental death, the debit card has to be used for POS transactions atleast once in 180 days. However, we observe that the debit card of your son has not been used even once in the last 180 days from the date of his demise, due to which the nominee of the account will not be entitled for any claim.” The complainants have not disputed the said condition of usage of Debit/ ATM card by the account holder for atleast once in 180 days and in this regard have specifically asserted that deceased Rohit prior to his death withdrawn an amount of Rs.1000/- from his aforesaid bank account on 04.06.2018 through ATM at Kalanwali which transaction is within the statutory period of six months till date of accidental death of Rohit. But however, complainants have not placed on file copy of statement of account of said Rohit Singla to prove the fact that actually on 04.06.2018 their son Rohit made said transaction through his debit/ ATM card. The complainants have not disclosed the fact that how they came to know that Rohit made said transaction on 04.06.2018. If actually said transaction was made by their son Rohit on 04.06.2018, then complainants could prove the said fact by availing statement of account of their son but they have failed to prove the same. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 2 have specifically pleaded that the case of complainants could not fulfill the requirement of policy of debit card as Rohit Singla has not used the debit card/ POS transaction even once in last 180 days and in this regard they have placed on record statement of account of Rohit as Ex.R5 which reveals that amount of Rs.1000/- was withdrawn on 14.02.2015 and last transaction of the amount of Rs.2/- is of dated 31.03.2015. So complainants have failed to prove the fact of last transaction made by their son on 04.06.2018 as alleged by them. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that claim of complainants has been repudiated as per terms and conditions regarding usage of Debit/ ATM card.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President,
Dated: 31.10.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
