STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

Axis Bank Ltd., through its Branch Manager, having Branch Office at Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                                                                         …Appellant

                                        V e r s u s

1]  Baljit Kaur wife of Late Sh.Jagjit Singh,

2]  Fatehbeer Singh s/o Late Sh. Jagjit Singh,

3]  Amandeep Kaur d/o Late Sh. Jagjit Singh,

All residents of Village Shiekpura, Distt. S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. 

                                                                                ...Respondents

 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection   Act, 1986 against   order dated 07.12.2016 passed by          District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II,      U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.506/2015.

Argued by:    Mr.Saurav Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.  

 BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.                                                    MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                   MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                   Appellant/Opposite Party has filed this appeal against order dated 07.12.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), allowing a complaint filed by the respondents/complainants.

 2.        As per facts on record, Sh.Jagjit Singh, husband of complainant No.1 and father of Complainants No.2& 3 respectively was serving as constable in Chandigarh Police and he was holding salary account with the appellant/OP bank.  It was further asserted that when bank account was opened, he was offered a Personal Accidental Death Policy to the tune of Rs.5.00 Lakhs, in case, he opted to use ATM cum Debit Card issued by the bank.  The offer was accepted.  The said Jagjit Singh continued to use ATM/Debit Card till his death in an accident on 1.10.2013.  It was specifically alleged that when giving above said benefit with the ATM/Debit Card, terms and conditions of the insurance Policy were not supplied to the deceased.  After death of Sh.Jagjit Singh on 1.10.2013, complainants moved an application and submitted all requisite documents to claim the insured amount. However, their claim was arbitrarily filed/rejected by the OP, which led them to file a consumer complaint bearing No.506 of 2015. 

3.            Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellant/Opposite Party stating that the complaint was time barred and it was bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd. It was further stated that role of the Opposite Party was only of a Corporate agent/facilitator.  No benefit was obtained by the OP in issuing ATM/debit card in favour of the deceased. It was further disclosed that the OP had an agreement with the above said Insurance Company, under which, benefit in case of accidental death, was provided to the card holder.  It was further said that when accident occurred, the deceased Sh.Jagjit Singh was holding driving licence authorizing him to drive four wheeler, whereas at the time of accident, he was driving two wheeler.  Taking note of that fact, insurance claim of the complainants was rejected by the insurance Company. 

4.             Both parties led evidence.  The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint granting following relief to the respondents/complainants;

 a.   To pay the sum assured amount of Rs.5.00 lacs to                             the complainants;

                     b.   To pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation                     for the harassment suffered by the complainants on account of deficient service;

 c.    To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/-.

                                       The Opposite Party was directed to make payment  of the above amounts within a period of 45 days, failing which, amounts awarded were to get penal interest. Hence, this complaint. 

5.           Counsel for the appellant/OP has vehemently contended that the Forum was not justified in granting relief to the complainants because when accident occurred, the deceased was driving two wheeler, and at that time, he was not having driving license, authorizing him to drive the said type of vehicle.  Be that as it may, we are not going to accept the above said argument advanced by the Counsel for the appellant. It was specifically noticed by the Forum that when insurance cover was issued, terms and conditions of the insurance Policy were not supplied to the deceased. When rejecting similar argument raised, the Forum observed as under ;

“In continuation to the above discussion, it is pertinent to consider the rejection letter issued by the Insurance Company dated 12.3.2014 (Ann.R-1), the relevant contents of which are reproduced as under:-

“On scrutiny of the claim papers, it is observed that, at the time accident, the deceased was driving two-wheeler (Bajaj     CT-100) without having a valid driving license, as confirmed on 07.03.2014 (He has Driving license of Four-wheeler only).  Driving any two wheelers without having a valid Driving license is unlawful.

   In view of the above, we regret our inability to settle the claim under Exclusion 3.3 of Section II of our Policy contract and close the file as “NO CLAIM” and as such we are not calling for other required documents.”

          The perusal of the above contents reveals that the claim of the complainants was denied for the reason that the deceased cardholder was not holding two wheeler driving licence, which falls under Exclusion 3.3 of Section 2 of the policy contract.  To our utter surprise, no such policy document has been placed on record by the Opposite Party and none of the document on record pertaining to the account, states that the deceased cardholder was ever apprised about any of the terms & conditions of the policy or was ever issued the policy document.  So, the claim of the complainants cannot be rejected taking recourse to the exclusion clause Section 2 of the policy document, which was never ever supplied to the deceased cardholder and has not been placed on record by the Opposite Party for the reasons best known to it.”

6.                It was specifically noted that even the policy document was not placed on record, before the Forum below.  Further, it was not proved that the card holder was ever apprised about the terms and conditions of the Policy.  It is apparent on record that to enhance its business/profit, the appellant/OP had entered into an agreement with the insurance Company to provide ATM/Debit card to its account holders. ATM/Debit card issued to the deceased was used by him up till his death. The said use might have given some benefit to the bank. Merely by saying that OP was only a facilitator, it cannot escape its liability. The card holder had no connection, whatsoever, with the insurance Company.  Insurance cover was issued to him only on getting ATM/Debit Card issued by the bank.  That was an incentive given by the bank to the account holder. There was no privity of contract between the deceased and the insurance Company.  Even before this Commission, neither it was shown that terms and conditions of the Policy were ever made known to the deceased, nor the said Policy was produced in the Commission at the time of arguments.  Thus, no case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge. 

7.               For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District  Forum is upheld.

8.            Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

9.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

14.03.2017