1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that his late wife Basna Biswas had availed the insurance scheme under the Prime Minister Jivan Jyoti Bima Yojana (in short “PMJJBY”) by depositing Rs. 330/- from her S/B A/c no. 463702010023326 with the O.P.No.1 on 05.06.2018 for insurance coverage of any type of death and the amount was deducted from her account on 06.08.2015.  Further it is alleged that on 11.08.2015, his wife Basna Biswas was died, for which, the complainant being the husband and legal heir of the deceased policy holder lodged the death claim with the O.P. No. 1 and submitted all the relevant documents and on many occasions from 20.05.2016 to 05.06.2017 he approached the O.P.No.1 for release of insurance benefits, but all efforts went in vein.It is further alleged that on 05.06.2017 the O.P.No.1 handed over one letter dated 05.06.2017 addressed to the O.P.No.2 for release of insurance benefits and since 2 years have already been passed, no benefits was issued to the complainant.Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, he filed this case with a pray to direct the O.Ps to release the death claim alongwith 12% interest and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 20,000/- towards cost of litigation to him.

2. On the other hand, the O.P.No.1 though received the notice from the Fora on 14.12.2017 with an endorsement of their office, but did not appear in the present case.  Keeping in view of natural justice, the O.P.No.1 was given several opportunities for their appearance and filing of counter, but the O.P.No.1 did not choose to appear in the present proceedings, as such the O.P.No.1 set exparte as per our order no. 5 dated 16.02.2018 and the case was proceeded exparte against them. 

3. The O.P.No.2, after receiving the notice from the Fora, appeared in this case though their Ld. Counsel and filed their counter in shape of written statement denying their liability, stated that though the wife of complainant deposited the premium of Rs. 330/- towards PMJJBY from her account with O.P.No.1 but no information regarding her death was given to them either from the O.P. No. 1 or from the complainant and so also no relevant documents were forwarded to them for settlement of death claim.Further they have contended that the enrolment form under PMJJBY are retained by the concerned bank and in absence of relevant documents they cannot process the claim without evaluating the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy, hence, showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Complainant filed certain documents to prove his case such as:

                    (1) xerox copy of PMJJBY form received by O.P. No. 1,

                     (2) xerox copy of death Certificate of late Basana Biswas,

                     (3) xerox copy of legal heir certificate,

(4) xerox copy of bank pass book showing the deduction of Rs. 330/-,

(5) xerox copy of correspondence made with O.P.No.1 dated 29.04.2016,

(6) xerox copy of correspondence made with O.P.No.1 dated 20.05.2016,

(7) xerox copy of correspondence made between Union Bank of India and Star Union Dai Ichi Life Insurance Co. Ltd. dated 05.06.2017,

                   (8) xerox copy of PMJJBY scheme,

                    (9) xerox copy of Aadhar Card,

                    (10) xerox copy of Votor I- Card,

                   (11) xerox copy of Ration Card.

            whereas, the O.P. No. 2 did not choose to file any supportive documents to prove their contentions.

5. From the case records and submissions of the parties present in the Forum, it is ascertained that the wife of Complainant Late Basana Biswas was having the saving bank account vide no. 463702010023326 and on 06.08.2015 an amount of Rs. 330/- was deducted from her account by the O.P. No.1 under the scheme of PMJJBY for insurance coverage of her life though the O.P. No. 2.  Complainant has filed document to that effect.  Further it is revealed from the record that after death of her wife Basana Biswas, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the O.P. No. 1 and the same was acknowledged by the O.P.No.1.  Complainant also filed document to that effect.  It is also ascertained from the record that the O.P. No. 1 after keeping silent for about 2 years, the O.P. No. 1 processed the insurance claim vide office letter no. 113/17-18 dated 05.06.2017.  Complainant also filed document to that effect. Now the question arose that why did the O.P. No. 1 keep the death claim form along with the relevant documents with him and became silent instead of processing the same early settlement with the O.P.No. 2.  Since the O.P. No.1 remained absent throughout the proceeding, we lost every opportunities to hear from him. 

6. Further as per records, it is also ascertained that the Complainant after lodging the claim form with the O.P.No.1 for settlement of death claim towards the death of his deceased wife, he made correspondence with the O.P. No. 1 vide his letter dated 20.05.2016, which was also acknowledged by the O.P. No. 1.  But without processing the same for early settlement, the O.P. No.1 remained silent over a period of two years and kept the Complainant in dark.  Further the contentions of the O.P. No. 2 regarding the fact that they have not received the intimation of death of the life assured and relevant documents for settlement neither from the O.P. No.1 nor from the Complainant, is also unrebutted by the O.P. No. 1.Since the O.P.No.1 did not choose to appear before the Fora, nor filed their counter versions nor participated in the hearing, the submissions of Complainant and the contentions of the O.P.No.2 remained unchallenged on their part.So, there is no reason to disbelieve the versions of the Complainant and O.P.No.2.In this connection, we have fortified with a Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission, in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”

7. During the time of hearing, the A/R for O.P. No. 2 has contended that they have not been intimated about the death of the life assured and also they have not been received the relevant documents from the O.P.No.1, as such they do not have any liability.  We have gone the counter versions filed by the O.P. No.2 and ascertained that as per the para no. 2 of the parawise reply filed by them, wherein the O.P.No.2 clearly admitted that an amount of Rs. 330/- was deducted from the account of deceased life assured and she was enrolled into the insurance scheme on 06.08.2015.  As such the O.P.No.2 is well aware that the deceased life assured was genuine customer under them.  Further in the instant case, the O.P.No.1 is acting agent of the O.P.No.2, who makes the insurance policy of their bank customers.  It is well settled law that for any act of agent, the company is solely liable.  No doubt, in the instant  case, the O.P. No.2 have not received the death intimation and relevant documents from the O.P. No.1, but it does not mean that the Complainant will be deprieved of from getting the legitimate death benefit of his deceased wife. 

8. We feel, inspite of repeated approaches of the Complainant to the O.P. No. 1, the O.P.No.1 kept silent over the matter without doing anything for the early settlement of the death claim, which is gross negligence in their duty and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1, which cannot counted in any terms or kinds.  And for such negligent act of the O.P. No.1, the Complainant must have suffered severe mental agony and physical harassment for getting his legitimate death claim over the death of his deceased wife, which is not permissible in the eye of law, as it is the first and foremost duty of the O.P.No.1 to provide better service to their genuine customer and non providing of better service, the O.P.No.1 has proved gross deficiency on their part, which compelled the Complainant seek redress before the Forum by incurring some expenses.  Hence this order.

ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P.No.1 is herewith directed to handover all the relevant documents to the O.P. No. 2 for early settlement of the death claim of the life assured.  The O.P. No.2, being the insurer is herewith directed to release the death claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- within 15 days from the date when they receive all the relevant documents from the O.P.No.1.  Further the O.P. No. 1 is herewith directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation to the Complainant within one month, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest 10% per annum from the date of this Judgment.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3^rd day of August, 2018.

        Issue free copies to the parties concerned.