Haryana

Karnal

CC/558/2020

Smt. Amarjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Kumar Sharma

08 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 558 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.04.12.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:08.08.2022

 

Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, aged 62 years, wife of Shri Harpal Singh, resident of House no.E-362, Sham Gali, Arjun Gate, Karnal (Aadhar no.7976 8092 1232)

                                               …….Complainant.                  Versus

 

1.     Axis Bank, Mall Road, 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   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

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

                   Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:  

 

                

                The complainant has filed the present Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on averments that son of complainant namely Arjun Singh was having bank account with OP no.1, vide account no.918010047135151 and OP issued an ATM cum Debit Card to the deceased Arjun Singh. As per the policy of OP no.1, the holder of ATM/Debit Card died in the accident, in that eventuality the LRs of the deceased entitled for a claim amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-. The son of complainant died in a roadside accident and FIR was lodged to this effect vide FIR no.116 dated 08.03.2019, under section 279/304-A IPC with the Police of Police Station Butana, Karnal and his post mortem was conducted by the concerned doctors of Civil Hospital, Karnal. After the death of her son, complainant lodged the claim with OP no.2 through OP no.1 and submitted all the relevant documents as desired by the officials of the OPs. The complainant visited the office of OPs so many times to settle the claim of the deceased, but the officials of OPs did not make the payment of the claim and lastly rejected the claim of the complainant on the false and flimsy grounds. As per the repudiation letter Panchnama/Inquest Panchnama was required by the OPs and this document was submitted by the complainant to the OPs, despite that the claim was rejected. In this way there is deficiency in service 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; locus standi; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant was requested several times to submit the Panchnama/Inquest Panchnama/Police report before the OP for forwarding the same to the OP no.2 to complete the process and to settle the claim of the complainant, but complainant has not submitted the same and for want of the same the process could not be completed, so it is not proved that holder of ATM Card/Debit Card had died and complainant is entitled for any compensation. Thus, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP no.2 on genuine ground. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that after getting intimation regarding claim, OP no.2 requested several times to complainant to provide requisitioned necessary documents to process the claim, as per terms and conditions of the policy, which were not supplied, perforce, left with no option, due to non-submission requisitioned necessary documents, OP rejected the claim vide letter, which was intimated to Axis Bank limited. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C1, copy of ATM(Visa Platinum) Ex.C2, copy of FIR Ex.C3, copy of post mortem report Ex.C4, copy of death report Ex.C5, copy of letter dated 19.11.2020 Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 22.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikas Goel Ex.RW1 and copy of repudiation letter Ex.RW2 and closed the evidence on 08.03.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Kamal Kishore Sachdeva, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of claim rejection letter Ex.R1, copy of insurance policy Ex.R2, copy of agreement Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 15.06.21022 by suffering separate statement.

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 the complaint, has vehemently argued that son of complainant (since deceased) was having bank account with OP no.1 and OP no.1 issued an ATM cum Debit Card to the deceased Arjun Singh. As per the policy of OP no.1, the holder of ATM/Debit Card died in the accident, in that eventuality the LRs of the deceased entitled for a claim amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-. The son of complainant died in a roadside accident. After the death of her son, complainant lodged the claim with OPs and submitted all the relevant documents but OPs did not make the payment of the claim and rejected the same on the false and flimsy ground i.e. non-submission of Panchnama/Inquest Panchnama/Police Report and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that complainant was requested several times to submit the Panchnama/Inquest Panchnama/Police report to the OP to complete the process and to settle the claim of the complainant, but complainant has not submitted the same. Thus, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           Learned counsel for OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that after getting intimation regarding claim, OP no.2 requested several times to complainant to provide requisitioned necessary documents to process the claim, as per terms and conditions of the policy, which were not supplied. So, due to non-submission requisitioned necessary documents, OP rejected the claim of complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Admittedly, the son of complainant was having an ATM/Debit Card. It is also admitted the sum insured was Rs.5,00,000/-.

14.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs, vide repudiation letter Ex.R1 only on the ground that for non-submission of documents as per SLA.

15.           As per the version of the complainant she has submitted all the relevant documents with the OPs but as per the version of the OPs, complainant has failed to submit the Panchnama/Inquest Panchnama/Police Report and in the absence of Panchnama/Inquest Panchnama/Police report the claim of the complainant was repudiated.

16.           It is evident from the FIR Ex.C3 the son of complainant namely Arjun met with an accident. It is also evident from the post mortem report Ex.C4 he was expired due to injuries sustained in the said accident. The complainant has also placed on file inquest report Ex.C5. It is not possible that if the complainant had the said report, why she would not have submitted it to the OPs. Further, if the complainant had not submitted the said report to the OPs, the OPs could have obtained the same from the concerned police station or also from the court where the report U/S 173 Cr.P.C. was presented by the Police. On perusal of the repudiation letters, it appears that unnecessary queries have been raised by the OPs in order to close the genuine claim of complainant and just to harass the complainant on one pretext or the other. Moreover, the person whose personal interest is involved in form of the huge claim amount, then, as to why, he would not submit the documents which were demanded by the OPs. Hence, plea taken by the OPs is having no force 

17. 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.

 

18.           Keeping in view, the ratio of the law laid down in aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that act of the OPs while repudiating the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service, which is otherwise proved genuine one. 

19.           As per the version of complainant, the insured amount is Rs.5,00,000/- and this fact has not been rebutted by the OPs. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses etc.

20.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. five lakhs only) i.e. insured amount  to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with 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.

Announced

Dated:08.08.2022.

                                                                       

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                        Member