BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President And Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member And Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member Friday the 19th day of October, 2012 C.C.No.10/2012 Between: 1. N. Atma Linga Reddy, S/o. Dhanunjaya Reddy, 2. N Ramulamma, W/o. N. Atma Linga Reddy, Both are residing at H.No.1-10, Kalukuntla Village, Manopadu Mandal – 501 944, Mahaboob Nagar District. …Complainants -Vs- 1. Axis Bank, Represented by its Branch Manager, D.No.16/1, Sapthagiri Circle, Nithin Complex, Subhash Road, Anantapur – 515 001. 2. Axis Bank, Represented by its Branch Manager, Shop No. 40/581, S.V. Complex, Kurnool – 518 004. 3. Axis Bank, Represented by its Divisional Manager, 40,’Trishul”, Opp. Samartheswar Temple, Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. 4. M/s New India Assurance Company, Represented by its Divisional Manger, D.o.112700, 22, 2nd Floor, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. ...Opposite ParTies . This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for complainants and Sri.A.S.U.Javid Ali, Advocate for opposite parties 1 to 3 and Sri Mohammad Ishaq, Advocate for opposite party No.4 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following. ORDER (As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member) C.C. No.10/2012 1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:- (a) To direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the assured amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with accident benefits and with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of death; (b) To grant a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the compensation for causing mental agony and hardship; (c) To grant the cost of the complaint; (d) To grant such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- N.Lokeswara Reddy who is the son of the complainants opened an account with opposite party No.1 under account No.911010016256790. On 25-03-2011 he took one ATM Titanium Rewards Debit Card from opposite party No.1. The said Debit Card covered for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as personal Accidental Insurance Cover. On 23-04-2011 the card holder died in road accident near Ulindakonda Village of Kurnool District, and the same was registered in Crime No.32/2011. The complainants who are the parents of the deceased N.Lokeswara Reddy submitted claim to opposite party No.2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 neither settled the claim nor repudiated. Due to non-settlement of claim the complainants suffered mental agony. There is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint. 3. Opposite party No.2 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite parties 1 and 3. It is stated in the written version of opposite party No.2 that the complaint is not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is admitted that the deceased N.Lokeswara Reddy opened an account with Axis Bank, Anantapur, and he obtained Debit Card Cum ATM Card No.5327020201543884. The said Debit Card covered Accidental Insurance for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- provided by opposite party No.4, on fulfillment of certain terms and conditions. The said terms and conditions and key usage booklet were forwarded to all the customers at the time of availing Debit Card facility. As per the terms and conditions of policy, the death intimation should be given within 60 days from the date of incident to the Bank or Insurance Company and further there should be 1 P.O.S. transaction in preceding 180 days of incident. The complainants neither intimated nor submitted any claim form to opposite parties. The deceased never used the Debit Card from the date of issue to the date of incident. The role of Bank is limited. It is only a facilitator. The Bank is not liable to pay any amount to complainants. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite party No.4 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that opposite party No.4 has extended Insurance Coverage to Credit Card holder of Axis Bank. The personal Accident Insurance coverage is extended to an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for all the Titanium Rewards Debit Card holders. The complainants had not intimated about the accidental death of Late Lokeswar Reddy. It is a condition precedent to the company’s liability under the policy, that on the incident of insured death, written notice accompanied by a copy of post Mortem Report should be given to the Company within 60 days from the date of incident occurred. The complainants violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainants had neither intimated nor submitted any claim form to opposite parties. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.4. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B4 are marked and sworn affidavits of opposite parties are filed. 5. Both sides filed written arguments. 6. Now the points that arise for consideration are: i. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties? ii. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? iii. To what relief? 7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly Late.N.Lokeswar Reddy son of the complainants opened an account bearing No.911010014254790 in opposite party No.1 Bank. A copy of Account opening form is marked as Ex.B4. Ex.B3 is the copy of Account Extract. The account holder operated the account for some period. Admittedly on 25-03-2011 he obtained ATM Debit Card Ex.A1 = Ex.B1. It covered the personal accident risk to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Ex.A2 is the copy of Acceptance Letter issued by opposite party No.1. It is the case of the complainants that on 23-04-2011 the insured died in road accident near Ulindakonda, Kurnool District. The first complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly stated that his son died in road accident on 23-04-2011. The complainants also filed Ex.A3 copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.32/2011, Ex.A4 Inquest Report and Ex.A5 Post Mortem Report. As seen from Ex.A3 to Ex.A5 it is very clear that the son of the complainants died in a road accident that took place on 23-04-201. 8. It is the case of the complainants that after the death of their son they approached the opposite parties and made claim for assured amount and that the opposite parties did not respond. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that the terms and conditions are not mentioned either in Debit Card or in Ex.A2 and the complainants cannot be held liable for nonobservance. In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in III (2011) CPJ 477 (NC) where in it was held that Bank under obligation to bring notice of its customer nature and condition of relevant insurance scheme – so the card holder cannot be held liable for non-observance. In another decision II (2012) CPJ 349 (NC) it was held that claim could not be repudiated by citing special exceptions which is in specimen copy of insurance policy which was not made available to him nor was he appraised about it. But in present case on hand it is clearly mentioned in Ex.A2 that opposite party No.1 supplied the usage guide manual and terms and conditions booklet, Titanium Reward debit card (Ex.A1=Ex.B1). Except the affidavit evidence of the first complainant there is no independence evidence on record to show that the complainants intimated to opposite parties immediately in writing about the death of the card holder Late N.Lokeswar Reddy. 9. It is the case of the opposite parties 1 to 3 that the bank is only a facilitator and it has no liability to pay the insurance claim. Opposite party No.1 already forwarded the terms and conditions to the card holder along with Ex.A2. Opposite party No.2 filed Ex.B2 terms and conditions of the policy. As per the conditions of the policy, there should be immediate death intimation to the bank, and the claim has to be submitted to be bank then the claim should be processed from the said bank to insurance company. The complainants neither gave intimation about accidental death of their son nor submitted any claim form to the bank. In a decision in F.A.No.86/2008 against C.C.No.152/2003, A.P. State Commission held that it is the duty of the card holder to insist the bank to issue the terms and condition of the credit card and also insurance benefit that is tied up with it. In the present case on hand, opposite party No.1 enclosed the terms and conditions, booklet along with Ex.A1 = Bx.B1. The card holder is the best person who can say whether he is aware of the terms and conditions of the policy. Unfortunately he died in the accident. The complainants have no personal knowledge whether their son was served with terms and conditions of the policy. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.4 contended that there should be one P.O.S. transaction in preceding 180 days of incident that the insured never used debit card from the date of its issue to the date of incident and the insurance company is not liable. In present case the deceased Late N.Lokeswara Reddy died in road accident within one month from the date of issuance of debit card. There was no chance to use it. It is the case of opposite party No.4 that all the terms and conditions issued were well known to said debit card holders as the same was supplied. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.A2 that opposite party No.1 forwarded the terms and conditions, booklet usage along with debit card. It is a condition precedent to the company’s liability under the policy that, in the event of insured death written notice accompanied by a copy of post mortem should be given to the company within 60 days from the date of incident. The complainants violated the terms and conditions of the policy. They had neither intimated nor submitted any claim form to the opposite parties. In the light of clear mention in Ex.A2 the contention of the complainants that they are not aware of the conditions is not tenable. 11. The complainant could not place any material on record to prove that they had given intimation in writing to the opposite parties about the accidental death of the card holder. The complainants did not choose to summon the opposite parties to produce the claim form, if they have submitted to opposite parties. No deficiency of service is found on the part of the opposite parties. As the complainants violated the terms and conditions of the policy, they are not entitled for the assured sum under the policy. 12. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 19th day of October, 2012. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses Examined For the complainants : Nill For the opposite parties : Nill List of exhibits marked for the complainants:- Ex.A1 Photo copy of Debit Card issued by opposite party. Ex.A2 Photo copy of Letter of Acceptance and Intimation Letter issued by opposite party. Ex.A3 Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.32/2011 of Ulindaknoda P.S dated 23-04-2011. Ex.A4 Photo copy of Inquest Report dated 23-04-2011. Ex.A5 Photo copy of Post Mortem Certificate dated 23-04-2011. List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Ex.B1 Photo copy of ATM Cum Debit Card. Ex.B2 Photo copy of ATM Cum Debit Card usage guide with most importance terms and conditions. Ex.B3 Photo copy of Account Extract of the deceased N.Lokeswar Reddy. Ex.B4 Photo copy of Account Opening Form along with Judgment Citation of A.P. State Commission. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987// Copy to:- Complainant and Opposite parties : Copy was made ready on : Copy was dispatched on : | 
