NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3557/2011

MACHU MARRI MASTANAMMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

MR. CHAVA BADRI NATH BABU

26 Apr 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3557 OF 2011
 
(Against the Order dated 08/07/2011 in Appeal No. 877/2009 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MACHU MARRI MASTANAMMA
W/o Late Konda Reddy, R/o Chinna Kottapalli (V), Addanki Mandal,
Prakasham
A.P
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. BRANCH MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK
Addanki
Prakasham
A.P
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. S. K. NAIK, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. CHAVA BADRI NATH BABU
For the Respondent :
Mr. N.P. Gaur, Advocate

Dated : 26 Apr 2012
ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 08.07.2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 877 / 2009, the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the respondent Bank against the order dated 28.07.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ongole in C.C. No. 269 / 2008 by which order the complaint was allowed and the bank was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh under the A.B. Jeevan Policy together with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/-. In the appeal the Bank reiterated its contention that it has not committed any deficiency in service in not renewing the policy inasmuch as the account holder was not having sufficient money in his account to pay the premium for policy. The balance in the account of the account holder having been reduced to Rs.258/- and the premium required to be paid was Rs.744/-. The State Commission on consideration of the matter and in particular keeping in view the provisions of clause 10 held that the Bank has not committed any deficiency in service and allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions. Counsel for the complainant / petitioner does not dispute the factual position that the credit balance in the account of the deceased insured account holder was reduced to Rs.258/- which was not sufficient to make the payment of premium by the Bank in order to keep the policy in force. The insured as a prudent person ought to have maintain at least the minimum credit balance in his account which could meet the payment of the premium by the Bank to the Insurance Company. The Bank was not expected to pay the premium from its own fund. In our view, the order is eminently justified in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the petitioner prays that in view of the hardship being faced by the widow of the deceased, the Bank may grant some small sum ex-gratia to her. In our opinion, in the given facts and circumstances and that the opposite party being a Bank there is no question of any payment of any amount as ex-gratia. Revision Petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed..

 
......................J
R. C. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
S. K. NAIK
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.