DATE OF DISPOSAL: 21.11.2019
Sri Karunakar Nayak,President:
The complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that by pursue of previous Branch Manager, Rushikulya Gramya Bank (Now it is Utkal Grameen Bank) Kodala he deposited Rs.50,000/- in five installment i.e. on 06.10.2009, 22.10.2010, 13.10.2011, 28.11.2012 and 23.11.2013 which has to mature on 06.10.2014. It was clearly saying by previous Branch Manager in the present of BALICO Agent and other Bank staff and customers (U.Sarat Kumar Patro and many more) the maturity amount of Rs.50,000/-+8% interest shall be credited on same day dated 06.10.2014 to the complainant SSB account with any hesitation. Three representations dated 09.10.2014, 20.10.2014 and 04.04.2015 green inked paged No.1,2 and 3 has been submitted by the complainant but do not deny/answered by Branch Manager, Utkal Grameen Bank. After six month of maturity date 06.10.2014 the Bank deposited an amount of Rs.42,393/- which are lesser than deposit amount of Rs.50,000/-+8%interests+6 months interest, other if any by the reason it was the share market value what are neither mentioned any where nor spoken while discussed several times. But clearly says total amount of Rs.50,000/-+8%interest to be credited on same day to complainant account. The O.P. was not asking about the business agreement of the BALICO & RGB. The O.P. only asking B.M.RGB orally declared in the presence of all, NO BALICO BUT RGB SHALL BE CREDIT ENTIRE AMOUNT WITH INTEREST ON MATRURITY DAY TO MY S.B.ACCOUNT. Bank not denied the representation that there is no talk of HDFC representations. Now UGB demanding they have not role in the matter. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund amount of Rs.50,000/-+interest other if any+ legal expenses total Rs.1,00,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but neither O.P.No.3 appeared nor filed any written version. Hence O.P.No.3 declared exparte on dated 17.05.2018.
4. On receipt of notice the O.P.No.1 & 2 filed version through his advocate. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint petition are all not true and the complainant is put to strict proof of all such allegations. The consumer case filed against the Regional Manager, Utkal Grameen Bank, Bramhapur is not maintainable in law. The Regional Manager, Utkal Grameen Bank, Bramhapur is neither necessary party nor proper party. The case is bad for mis-joinder of party to the case. Hence the case is to be dismissed as against the Regional Manager, Utkal Grameen Bank, Bramhapur. So it is highly required to delete the R.M. UGB, Regional Office, Bramhapur from record. The Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited is the insurer after receiving Rs.10,000/-from the applicant and accepting the offer issued “Certificate of insurance” in favour of the applicant, who is policy holder. The Bank has only provided referrals to Bajaj Allianz to facilitate customers and to serve customers on good faith and also ac ted as a Master Policy Holder in short “MPH”. The amount deposited i.e. Rs.10,000/- by the applicant-insured member life insured, has been received by the Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited/Respondent No.1 who has accepted the offer and has issued certificate, which is very much clear from the “Certificate of Insurance” of the applicant. The agreement is in between the applicant and the Respondent No.3- Bajaj Allianz Company Ltd. The applicant made “Offer” and the respondent No.3 insurer made “Acceptance”. The claim if any is enforceable by law is against the respondent No.3/insurer, who has issued certificate of insurance. The Bank is not the insurer or master insurer. The Bank acted as Master Policy Holder on behalf of all policy holder and strands as same footing and same line with the policy holder. The O.P.No.1 or No.2 has not issued the certificate of insurance. The certificate of insurance has been issued by the insurer whose liability is attached in case any wrong is done by him. The certificate does not disclose any clause of liability by the Bank. The relief against the O.P.No.1 and 2 is not sustainable in law. The Bank has no license for insurance business having the authority of business. The Bank has only Banking business not the authority of insurance business. The complainant has received his maturity amount from the O.P.No.3 but is claim is to get more amounts, where in the insurer is liable to answer. So there is no necessity to add the Bank as party to the case. The complainant had approached Banking Ombudsman at Bhubaneswar on the same issue for receipt of less maturity proceeds deposits in complainant No. 1538/2015-16. In the said case the Banking Ombudsman holds that: - “The maturity amount of Rs.42,393/- paid by BALICO to you was in accordance with the rules governing the insurance scheme of the company and the Bank had no role to play in this regard. No deficiency in service under Clause-8 of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 can be attributed to the Bank at this stage. The complaint is therefore rejected under clause 13(a) thereof”. The fact has been suppressed by the complainant. The complainant must come up with clean hands to seek relief. Having not done so should not be entitled relief. Since the Bank is not the Insurance Company the O.P.No.1 and 2 shall not be taken and termed within the meaning of liability. The Bank has only provided referrals to Bajaj Allianz. The Bank shall not make any warranties about the insurance product of Bajaj Allianz. The Bank has well discharged his duty as a Banker with UTMOST GOOD FAITH and has not done any high handed action. The Bank has not done any deficiency of service. Hence the O.P.No.1 & 2 prayed to dismiss the case.
5. Upon notice the O.P.No.3, 4 &5 filed written version/written argument through their advocate. It is stated that the allegations in various paragraphs of the petition are all not true and correct and are hereby denied. The complainant is put to straight proof all such allegations which are not specifically admitted herein. The averments based on false and fabricated ground meant for purpose of this case. One Rabindranath Behera had opened a master policy with Rushikulya Gramya Bank vide Master Policy No.0119486827, Member policyNo.0221074218, Product Name: Swayam Shakti Surakhya, Date of commencement: 06.10.2009. After the maturity as per calculation the company already paid the maturity amount through direct credit in the bank account of LA on dated 23.03.2015. Therefore under above circumstances the petition is liable for dismiss as the same has no merit and legal strength as the company had already paid the maturity amount. Hence the O.P.No.3,4&5 prayed to dismiss the case in the best interest of natural justice.
6. On the date of hearing we heard argument from the complainant’s advocate as well as O.P.No. (4&5)’s Advocate and perused the case record and the materials placed on it. One Rabindranath Behera had opened a master policy with Rushikulya Gramya Bank vide Master Policy No.0119486827, Member policyNo.0221074218, Product Name: Swayam Shakti Surakhya, Date of commencement: 06.10.2009. The complainant fails to file any documentary evidence that his deposits have been matured from 6.10.2014 and the maturity value is Rs.50,000/-+8% interest thereof. It reveals from the documents on record that the complainant has deposited Rs.10,000/- in each premium i.e. on 6.10.2009, 22.10.2010, 13.10.2011, 8.11.2012 and 23.11.2013 through membership No.2552 and to that effect he has also received the acknowledgement letter from the authority of Rushikulya Gramya Bank, Kodala. It reveals from the annual account statement of the complainant filed by Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. that the total account value of Master Policy No. 0119486827, Member Policy No:0221074218 of complainant is Rs.43,572/-. It reveals from the account statement of the complainant filed by the O.P.No. 4&5 that Rs.11,306.87 paisa has been deducted as certificate of insurance with tax from the total premiums paid by the complainant. Further it also reveals that scheme Adm.fee amount has also been deducted from the total premium amount. After the maturity as per calculation the Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd has already paid Rs.43,572/-the maturity value through direct credit in the bank account of LA on dated 23.03.2015. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not given any application to the Bajaj Allianz LIC Ltd. (BALICO) Authority for getting his maturity value of the insurance. Hence in our considered view there is no deficiency in service on the parts of the O.Ps.
In the result the complainant’s case is dismissed against the O.Ps without cost.
The order is pronounced on this day of 21st November 2019 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
