District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.49/2021.
Date of Institution: 28.01.2021.
Date of Order: 12.09.2022.
Gopal Dass Hasija (Age 58) son of Shri Sobraj resident of House No.29, Ward No.9, Punjabiwara, Ballabgarh.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Bank of Baroda (Earlier) Vijaya Bank, Mohana Road, Ballabgarh.
2. Bank of Baroda registered office, Baroda Bhavan, 7th floors, R.C.Dutt Road, Vadodara, Pin code – 390007.
3. Insurance Company (Details mention after received the particulars of the policy from the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2).
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………..Member
PRESENT: Sh. Neeraj Chandel, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Shiv Kumar Joshi, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant and his family members were having the bank account in the opposite party No.1 bank and real daughter of the complainant namely Miss Divya Hasija having the bank saving account of the opposite party No.1 bank vide the bank account No. 830501011005957. As per government welfare scheme for bank account holder complainant and his daughter namely Miss Divya availed the said scheme and opposite party deducted the amount for the sum of Rs.330 & Rs.12/- and informed to the complainant as well as daughter of the complainant for assured for the sum of Rs.2 lac in case any miss happening or death and said scheme called Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana Death Benefit. Daughter of the complainant was died all of sudden on 17.4.2018 at home and the death of daughter of complainant was natural death and fully cover the terms and conditions of the said insurance policy, the complainant was nominee of his daughter Miss Divya moreover the others family members were no any objections the complainant received the compensation form the opposite party. After the death of complainant daughter the complainant within 10 days complete the formalities of the death claim benefit and given all the documents to the opposite party NO.1 and then after regularly visited the bank. The staff of opposite party No.1 bank time to time informed to the complainant that his claim case forwarded any very soon the claim amount transfer in the bank account of the complainant. The complainant time to time visited the opposite party bank and asked for the claim and every time the bank staff assured to complainant for sanction the claim shortly and the relation of the complainant and opposite party bank staff was very good, so the complainant was waiting for sanction of the claim. After long waiting complainant asked the bank staff the time limit for sanction the claim and wants to information which bank office the claim
file pending and when the bank staff not given any sufficient reply. The complainant sent legal notice dated 12.10.2020 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) sanction the claim of the complainant and than after paying the amount of claim for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% from the date submit the claim i.e 1 May 2018 to till realization/actual payment received.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 25,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the policy had not been generated, as the necessary documents had not been supplied by the complainant to the opposite party. The insurance was a contract between the policy holder and the insurer and both parties were governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy documents. The complainant had failed to disclose the entire facts by hiding that he had not submitted the application form for applying for insurance. Hence there was no contract formed. Further, neither any policy documents had been placed on record by the complainant to prove his claim nor any policy number had been provided. The complainant had no documents to prove that he was the nominee. Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Bank of Baroda & Others with the prayer to: a) sanction the claim of the complainant and than after paying the amount of claim for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% from the date submit the claim i.e 1 May 2018 to till realization/actual payment received. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 25,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Gopal Dass Hasija, ex.C-1 – letter dated 04.01.2021,, Ex.C2 - Claim Form, Ex.C3 to C5 – postal receipts, Ex.C-6 – legal notice, Ex.C-7 - Bank statement, Ex.C-8 – Death certificate,, Exs.C-9 – Adhaar card of Divya Hasija, Ex.C-10 – affidavit of Gopal Dass Hasija,, Ex.C-11 – Rules for Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Juoti Bima Yojana
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties – affidavit of Shri rakesh Kumar S/o late Shri Surendra Parsad, Branch Manager of the Bank of Baroda, MSME Branch, Mohna Road, Ballabgarh.
6. During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has placed on record Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Bima Yojana (PMJJBY) stating that” the PMJJBY is available to people in the age group of 18 to 50 years having a bank account who give their consent to join/enable auto-debit. Aadhar would be the
primary KYC for the bank account. The life cover of Rs.2 lakhjs shall be for the one year period stretching form Ist June to 31st May and will be renewable. Risk coverage under this scheme is for Rs.2 lakh in case of death of the insured, due to any reason. The premium is Rs.436 per annum which is to be auto-debited in one installment from the subscriber’s bank account as per the option given by him on or before 31stMay of each annual coverage period under the scheme. The scheme is being offered by Life Insurance corporation and all other life insurers who are willing to offer the product on similar terms with necessary approvals and tie up with banks for this purpose.”
On the other hand, counsel for the opposite agitated that the complaint is time barred.
As we all now in the year 2020 to 2021 the diseases Covid-19 was spreading and the government of India have declared the Lockdown in the Country and everything was getting closed. The builders are also sufferer.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took Suo Motu Cognizance in SMWP 3 of 2020 of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19.
The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings.
This issues goes in favour of the complainant.
7. Keeping in view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to process the claim of the complainant within 30 days of receipt of the copy of order and pay the due amount to the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 12.09.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
