DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/27/2023
Date of Institution: 03.03.2023
Date of Decision: 16.09.2024
Rajesh Kumar Modi son of Sh. Gora Lal Modi resident # B-VIII/382, Quila Mohalla, Ward No. 12, Barnala, District Barnala, Punjab.
…Complainant
Versus
Axis Bank, Aggarsain Chowk, Barnala through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. Jashan Modi Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Jindal Adv counsel for opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Axis Bank, Aggarsain Chowk, Barnala through its Branch Manager (in short the opposite party).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant opened a joint saving Account No. 418010100044457, alongwith his wife named Meena Modi with the opposite party on 6.5.2008. It is alleged that on 15.5.2015 the complainant got a telephone call from the opposite party that the opposite party starting a Group Insurance Policy under scheme Pardhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yogna for all the account holders and Rs. 12/- will be deducted as premium from your account automatically every year and insured for Rs. 500,000/- each. It is further alleged that in case of death of any account holder the survivor will be given the claim of insured amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and it is the responsibility of the Bank to pay the insured amount in case of death. On trusting the words on 16.5.2015 the complainant gave consent for the above said policy and the opposite party charged Rs. 12/- as premium and there after the opposite party charged the premium of Rs. 12/- from 2016 to 2021 regularly. It is further alleged that on 22.5.2021 wife of the complainant named Meena Modi suddenly died. The complainant visited the opposite party and gave intimation of death of his wife and gave death certificate to get insurance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant visited the opposite party time and again but the opposite party avoided the complainant on one pretext or the other and ultimately on 9.9.2022 the opposite party flatly refused to accede the request of the complainant and the complainant closed his account with opposite party. The said act & conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite party may be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500,000/-alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death till realization.
- To pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation as physical and mental pain, agony and harassment.
- Further, to pay Rs. 33,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written version by taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed as he failed to implead the head office and regional office of the opposite party and also failed to implead Pardhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojna department of Government of India. The complainant has not come with clean hands. The complainant has got no locus-standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. It is further alleged that the complainant maintains his saving account only with the opposite party Bank and they deducted Rs. 12/- from the saving account of the complainant and insured the complainant under Pardhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojna and the Meena Modi whose name in the said saving account is second person and Meena Modi is not insured under the said scheme.
4. On merits, it is submitted that Government of India starting a group insurance policy to the saving account holders in India and as per policy the complainant is first account holder of his saving account and opposite party deducted Rs. 12/- from the saving account of the complainant and insured himself only under the said scheme. It is admitted that the complainant given his consent to insure himself in his saving account for the above said group insurance scheme. It is further alleged that if the both holders of account were insured under this scheme then the second consent by the customer/account holder is also necessary and then the opposite party can deduct another Rs. 12/- to insure the second account holder. As the complainant paid Rs. 12/- as premium for group insurance scheme and the wife of the complainant never insured in the said scheme, then question of any insurance amount of Rs. 500,000/- as insurance amount paid to the complainant does not arise at all. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. Ld. Counsel for complainant on 2.5.2023 has suffered the statement that I do not want to file any rejoinder against the version of opposite party.
6. To prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1, copies of statement of accounts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8, copy of death certificate Ex.C-9, copy of application Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.
7. The opposite party tendered into evidence copy of email Ex.O.P-1, copy of schedule/terms of PMSBY Ex.O.P-2, affidavit of Rahul Kumar Branch Manager Ex.O.P-3 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the parties.
9. It is not disputed between the parties that the complainant opened a joint saving Account No. 418010100044457, alongwith his wife named Meena Modi with the opposite party on 6.5.2008 (as per Ex.C-2). It is also admitted case of the complainant that on 16.5.2015 the complainant gave consent for the above said policy and the opposite party charged Rs. 12/- as premium and there after the opposite party charged the premium of Rs. 12/- from 2016 to 2021 regularly (as per Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8).
10. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that on 15.5.2015 the complainant got a telephone call from the opposite party that the opposite party starting a Group Insurance Policy under scheme Pardhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yogna for all the account holders and Rs. 12/- will be deducted as premium from your account automatically every year and the account holders will be insured for Rs. 500,000/- each. It is further argued that in case of death of any account holder the survivor will be given the claim of insured amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and it is the responsibility of the Bank to pay the insured amount in case of death. It is further argued that on 22.5.2021 (as per Ex.C-9) wife of the complainant named Meena Modi suddenly died and the complainant visited the opposite party and gave intimation of death of his wife and gave death certificate to get insurance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is further argued that the complainant visited the opposite party time and again but the opposite party avoided the complainant on one pretext or the other and ultimately on 9.9.2022 the opposite party flatly refused to accede the request of the complainant.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant has not come with clean hands. It is further argued that the complainant maintains his saving account only with the opposite party Bank and they deducted Rs. 12/- from the saving account of the complainant and insured the complainant under Pardhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojna and the Meena Modi whose name in the said saving account is second person and Meena Modi is not insured under the said scheme. It is further argued that the complainant is first account holder of his saving account and opposite party deducted Rs. 12/- from the saving account of the complainant and insured himself only under the said scheme. It is further argued that the complainant given his consent to insure himself in his saving account for the above said group insurance scheme. It is further argued that if both the account holders were insured under this scheme then the second consent by the customer/account holder is also necessary and then the opposite party can deduct another Rs. 12/- to insure the second account holder but the complainant paid Rs. 12/- as premium for group insurance scheme and the wife of the complainant never insured in the said scheme, then question of any insurance amount of Rs. 500,000/- as insurance amount paid to the complainant does not arise at all.
12. We have carefully gone through the facts and evidence produced by both the parties. The opposite party has produced copy of email Ex.O.P-1 which shows that one Ravinder Kumar of Axis Bank sent an email on 21 March 2023 16:59 to the PMSBY for getting details required for A/C No. 418010100044457 of the insured under the said scheme and in this regard reply through email has been received vide which the PFB details of the customer mentioned as “Name of the Insured: Rajesh Kumar Modi S/O Gora Lal, Date of Birth: 26-08-1964, Saving Bank Account No. 418010100044457 and Nominee Name: Meena Modi”. The opposite party further placed on record FAQs on PMSBY Ex.O.P-2 vide which it is mentioned that “The scheme is a one year cover Personal Accident Insurance Scheme, renewable from year to year, offering protection against death of disability due to accident. It is further mentioned in Ex.O.P-2 that “In case of a joint account, all holders of the said account can join the scheme provided they satisfy its eligibility criteria and pay the premium at the rate of Rs. 20 per person per annum through auto-debit”. In the present case the premium amount of Rs. 12/- was debited every year for the insurance of complainant. The complainant and his wife has not opted to pay the premium of deceased Meena Modi.
13. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to produce any evidence to prove the fact that his wife Meena Modi was insured for the Pardhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojna whose name in the said saving account is mentioned as second person. However, the complainant has also failed to produce any evidence that his wife Meena Modi was died in accidental death because the above said scheme cover Personal Accident Insurance Scheme which offering protection against death or disability due to accident (as per Ex.O.P-2).
14. So, from the perusal of file it established that the complainant was insured for the above said Pardhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojna on account of deducting Rs. 12/- every year from his said saving account being first account holder and his wife Meena Modi was not insured for the above said scheme because she has not paid any premium. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party further argued that the present complaint is bad and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party further argued that the complainant failed to implead Pardhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojna department of Government of India as opposite party. The opposite party deducted the premium amount in the above said scheme and sent to PMSBY department. The complainant has got no cause of action qua the opposite party. On the perusal of the file it is evident that opposite party deducted the premium amount every year and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has not impleaded the concerned department in the present complaint.
15. In view of the above discussion, we find no merits in the present complaint and the same dismissed without cost. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
16th Day of September, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
