Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/105/2018

Yashodha Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axix Bank - Opp.Party(s)

N.K Vats

23 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

  CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.      105 of 2018

                                DATE OF INSTITUTION:                28.08.2018

                                          DATE OF ORDER:                          23.01.2024                         

 

Smt. Yashodha Devi widow late Sh. Jagbir Singh S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh R/o village Bapora, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Bhiwani Branch, Near Old Bus Stand, Circular Road, Bhiwani.

 

2. Managing Director, Axis Bank Ltd., Axis  House C-2, Wadia International Centre Pandurang Bhakkar Marg, Worli Mumbai (Maharashtra).

 

3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its Authorized Officer, DO-112700,22, 2^nd Floor, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member

 

Present:-        Sh. N.K. Vats, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. Sunil Sharma, Advocate for OP No.1.

Sh. Balbir Sharma, Adv. for OP No.3.

OP No.2 exparte.

 

ORDER:

 

Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member

 

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that husband of complainant late Sh. Jagbir Singh had a bank account No.915010058423936 with OP No.1 and was issued ATM Debit Card No.5346800009957809 and OP No.1 insured the life of the card holder with a personal accident insurance cover for Rs.5.00 lac. It is submitted that husband of complainant was driver of Haryana Roadways, who expired on 01.10.2017 in a road accident while on duty. Complainant being nominee is entitled for the benefits of the policy. FIR qua the accident was lodged at P.S. Tosham.  Post mortem of the insured was conducted on 02.10.2017 at Civil Hospital, Bhiwani.  OP No.1 was informed qua the accident by submitting all necessary document on 25.10.2017. But the claim was not paid to the complainant, so legal notice was got served upon the OPs No.1 & 2, which replied and it came out that OP No.3 is also necessary party in the matter.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred against the OPs alleging  deficiency in service on their part and thereby directing them to pay Rs.5.00 lac alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed their replies to the complaint.

3.                 OP No.2 did not appear, as such, it was proceeded against as exparte vide order dated 25.10.2018.

4.                 However, reply filed on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2 raising preliminary objections qua jurisdiction, locus standi, estoppel and mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.  On merits, it is submitted that the Jagbir Singh was covered a personal accident cover for Rs.5.00 lac but the claim is payable by OP No.3 insurance company subject to fulfill of terms and conditions of the bank and insurer whereas OP-bank is just a facilitator for OP No.3.         The main condition was that the ATM card should be used 180 days prior of date of accident. In this case, claim form was not submitted within 90 days of the accident with the OPs, complainant only gave intimation on 25.10.2017 alongwith death certificate. Due to non-fulfilment of terms & conditions, claim could not paid.  As such, alleged no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 5.            OP No.3 in its reply taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, jurisdiction and suppression of material facts. On merits, initially this OP denied claim to the complainant as no charges taken by the answering OP from the complainant. Further, no such, information or documents or claim form was submitted to the answering OP immediately after occurrence, if any, given that cannot bind the answering OP on account of inordinate delay caused by the claimant. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6.                 Ld. counsel for complainant tendered in evidence, documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8 and closed the evidence.

7.                 On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-4 and closed the evidence.

8.                 We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record carefully.

9.                 At the outset, as per reply to the legal notice (Annexure C-8), the OPs have denied claim to the complainant on the ground that claim was not submitted on proper format within stipulated period of 90 days alongwith all requisite documents. Perusal of insurance policy Annexure R-1 reveals that the OP- bank was insured with OP No.3-insurance company for risk cover of their Secured and Unsecured Txns of Credit & Debit Card for a period from 15.04.2017 to 14.04.2018. As per FIR (Annexure C-5), Post Mortem report (Annexure C-6) and death certificate (Annexure C-4), insured Jagbir Singh died due to an accident within the policy period. OP No.1 bank has admitted in its pleadings that Jagbir Singh was covered for a personal accident cover of Rs.5.00 lac, payable by OP No.3 insurance company. This fact is also clear from a document issued by OP No.1 bank (Annexure C-1). OP No.1 has stated that complainant has not submitted the claim on proper form(s) but it has not denied from death intimation by the complainant. Complainant in his pleadings has submitted that he visited the OP and also submitted documents on 25.10.2017. However, through legal notice dated 28.06.2018 (Annexure C-7), complainant got intimated the OPs qua her claim but despite that they did not pay any heed to the request of complainant.  From bank account statement on record (Annexure C-3), complainant is nominee for the insured Jagbir Singh.

10.               Ld. counsel for complainant has argued that complainant was not aware of the formalities to get benefit under the policy. However, any of the OPs never informed the complainant qua the formalities and time frame under the policy to get insurance claim. Thus the delay in the claim as alleged by OPs have no meaning and the OPs are rightly deficient and negligent in providing proper services to the complainant and they may be directed to release the claim as prayed for.  To strengthen his case, learned counsel has placed reliance on case law delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled HDFC Bank Limited Vs. Pooja Kapoor & Anr. 1(2016) CPJ-362 (NC) wherein it has been observed that:-

“Insurance-Death Claim-Gold Debit Card-Benefit of insurance for Rs.5.00 lac in case of accidental death of account holder-Claim not submitted within 30 days of death-Claim repudiated- Alleged deficiency in service-Apportionment of liability-District Forum allowed claim- State Commission dismissed appeal- Hence revision-Compensation awarded should be commensurate with deficiency in service.

-Even if insurance claim would have been sent at time of closure of account by petitioner-bank, insurance company might have rejected claim as time barred-Petition bank deficient in not informing respondent No.1 to submit claim at time of closure of bank account-Obviously, under the scheme, Bank was not responsible for paying insurance amount to nominee of insured-State Commission wrongly held that full insurance amount should be paid by petitioner-Bank to mitigate  deficiency in service-Interest of justice would be served, if petitioner-Bank pays compensation of Rs.2.00 lakh to OPNo.1 for their deficiency in service.

11.               On the other side, learned counsel for OPs have argued that the claim has been denied to the complainant as it was not submitted within the period prescribed under terms & conditions of the policy. As such, complainant cannot be given benefit of her own wrongs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs. 

12.               After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record on file including case law relied upon by complainant side, we are of the view that complainant has not placed on record any document which could show that the claim by complainant was submitted within the prescribed period under terms & conditions of the policy. But on the other side, it is also true that OPs have not suggested the complainant to make certain formalities to get benefit under the policy, after receiving death intimation from complainant. The Ops, even after issuing of the legal notice or during pendency of complaint before this Commission, never showed any promptness to settle the claim by obtaining required documents rather they are trying to absolve their liability. Accordingly, we are of considered opinion that the OPs have wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.  As such, the complaint is allowed and OPs are held equally liable to pay compensation to the complainant within 40 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lac) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                                                           

                    In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated: 23.01.2024

 

                              (Shashi Kiran Panwar)              (Saroj Bala Bohra)

                                                   Member                 Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission,Bhiwani.