1. The brief fact of the case of complainants are that, they being the legal heir / beneficiary of Subasini Palo, wife and mother of the Complainants, who had opened a SB account bearing A/c No. 217210100023479 with the O.P. – Bank, died on 21.01.207 in a train accident.  It  is alleged that interest of Rs. 3/- was credited in her account on December, 2016 within the 3 months preceding the death of Subasini Palo and after her death, the complainants preferred claim before the O.Ps vide claim no. 14230042170190000496, but the O.Ps have refused to settle the claim, thus showing their deficiency in service, the complainants have filed the present case claiming insurance claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.
    
2. O.P. No. 1 appeared in this case and filed their counter admitting that the deceased Subasini Palo was their genuine customer having SB A/c no. 217210100024379 with insurance facility followed by Insurance Programe for the financial year 2016-2017 issued by National Payments Corporation of India (in short NPCI).  Further they have averred that as per provisions of RuPay Insurance Program Circular vide no. RuPay/09/2014-15 dated 10.10.2014 & RuPay Insurance Program 2016-17 – Transaction performed at branch vide circular no. RuPay/2016-17/008 dated 23.05.2016, the complainant has not fulfilled the criteria to avail the insurance benefits, as such she is not eligible to get any benefits out of such insurance coverage and with other pleas, showing their no liability, they have prayed to dismiss the case.
    
3. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 2 is represented through their Ld. Counsel but did not choose to file their counter version inspite of repeated adjournments were given keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost opportunities to hear from them.  However, they have participated in the hearing as per our order no.18 dated 02.11.2018.
    
4. Parties have filed their respective documents in support of their submission.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the case record and material documents available therein.
    
5. That the deceased Subasini Palo was the genuine customer under the O.P. - Bank having saving account no. 217210100023479 is an admitted fact.  It is also not disputed that Subasini Palo was died on 21.01.2017 in a train accident.  The allegation of complainant is that the saving account of her deceased wife was alive as on date of her death and interest was accrued on the amount available in the said account.  Whereas the contentions of O.P. – Bank is that interest is not coming under the purview of transaction and deceased Subasini Palo had not maintained her account properly as per the guidelines of RuPay Insurance Program Circular vide no. RuPay/09/2014-15 dated 10.10.2014 & RuPay Insurance Program 2016-17 – Transaction performed at branch vide circular no. RuPay/2016-17/008 dated 23.05.2016 for which she is not eligible to avail the insurance coverage facility being provided by the O.P. No. 2 – insurance company.  Now the question arose that “whether interest paid by the O.P. – Bank is a transaction on the part of deceased Subasini Palo”. We have gone through the documents filed by the O.P. No. 1 i.e. statement of S.B. account and ascertained that RuPay Insurance Program Circular vide no. RuPay/09/2014-15 dated 10.10.2014 & RuPay Insurance Program 2016-17 – Transaction performed at branch vide circular no. RuPay/2016-17/008 dated 23.05.2016, from the Amended Clause (A) it is ascertained that “All Rupay Card holders (valid for physical or virtual Rupay card hold) i.e. Cards issued on an IIN assigned by RuPay will be eligible for the benefit under the RuPay Insurance Program 2016-17.  Benefits of insurance will be available to the Cardholders who have performed minimum one successful financial or non-financial transaction* at any channel both Intra and Inter-bank i.e. on-us and off-us (ATM/Micro ATM/POS/e-com/ Business correspondent of the bank at locations by any payment instrument)

1. Within 45 days prior to date of accident including accident date for premium cardholders and
2. Within 90 days prior to date of accident including accident date of non-premium card holders

* Transaction types means all customer induced transaction at bank branch or by any payment instrument whether on-us (Bank Customers/RuPay cardholder transacting at same bank channels) and / or off –us (Bank Customer /Rupay card holder transacting at other bank channels).

From the statement of account it is seen that the last transaction made by the deceased Subasini Palo was occurred on 08.07.2016 for withdrawing of Rs. 500/- and the balance was Rs. 295/- and till 20.09.2017 only the interest over the balance amount was paid to the account holder but no self transaction was made by the deceased account holder.  Further it is ascertained that there was a gap of six months between the last transaction and the death of deceased account holder, which does not fulfill the criteria to avail the insurance benefits.  Hence in our view, since the deceased account holder has not fulfilled such criteria coming under the purview either of premium cardholders or non-premium card holders, as such the complainants are not entitled for any insurance benefits from the O.Ps.  Accordingly, the answer goes in favour of the O.Ps.

6. Further at the time of hearing, the complainant argued that the O.Ps have not informed about the guidelines of such Insurance Program, otherwise, the account holder could have maintained the saving account properly, whereas the O.Ps have argues that the deceased account holder has received the RuPay card with its terms and conditions and also filed document to that effect i.e. Standing Instruction Register vide Sl. No. 401 dated 30.03.2015 showing the receipt of the such RuPay card by the deceased account holder.  Hence considering the said document, we are not inclined to accept the versions of complainants.   In view of the discussions, we are of the opinion that the complainants are not entitled for any insurance benefits.  Hence this order.

ORDER

        Considering the above discussions, the present case is dismissed against the O.Ps having no merit.  No order as to costs.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 18^th day of November, 2019. 

Issue free copies to the parties concerned.