Orissa

Cuttak

CC/171/2016

Renubala Badu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,SBI - Opp.Party(s)

S Mishra

28 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                    C.C.No.171/2016

 

                        Renubala Badu,

W/O:Late Sridhar Badu,

Vill:Shasanapada,P.O:Sithalo,

P.S:Niali,Dist:Cuttack.                                                 ...   Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

1. Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,Sithalo Branch,

At/PO:Sithalo,P.S:Niali,Dist:Cuttack

 

2. C.E.O-cum-Chairman,S.B.I,

State Bank Bhawan,Madan Clave Road,

                 Mumbai-400021

 

3. Chief Excecutive,S.B.I,

General CIN U66000MH2009PLC190546

A Corporate & registered Office at Natraj 101,201,301

Junction of Western Express High Way,

Andheri Kurla-Road,Andheri(East),Mumbai-400069.... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    28.12.2016

Date of Order:  28.04.2022

 

For the complainant:   Mr.  S.N.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1       :  Mr. A.K.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2:         None.

For the O.P No.3:         Mr. A.A.Khan,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

            The case record is put up today for orders.  

            The case of the complainant, bereft of unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that Sridhar Badu, the deceased husband of the complainant succumbed to the injuries after road accident at Pakanpur Chhack of Jagatgsinghpur on 10.12.2015, while he was driving his Scooty bearing Regd. No.OR-19M-5744 which collided with a Maruti Car bearing Regd. No.OD-02-J-5200.  F.I.R was lodged at the Jagatsinghpur Police Station to that effect on 27.12.2015.  Subsequently, the complainant could know that her late husband had an account at Sithalo Branch of State Bank of India vide Account No.20262302414, where, in the passbook it revealed that O.P.No.1 who is the bank, had deducted on dtd.29.12.2014 a sum of Rs.100/- towards onetime premium for insurance coverage.  After repeated running to the O.P No.1, the complainant took recourse of the R.T.I vide her letter dt.13.9.2016 wherein O.P No.1 admitted about the debit of premium on the said date.  She then had written to O.P No.2 for early settlement of the policy amount. She also had referred the matter to the Ombudsman at Bhubaneswar but could not get any benefit for which, ultimately she has filed her complaint petition in this Commission seeking redressal of her grievances.

2.         O.P No.1 to the contrary, has filed his written version having contested this case.  O.P No.1 do not dispute about death of husband of the complainant as narrated by the complainant but has stated that the complainant had never approached him nor had produced any relevant document.  According to the O.P No.1, this case is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, there was no deficiency of service as alleged and as such the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.

3.         O.P No.2 has not contested this case and thus has been set exparte.  The complainant had earlier impleaded Chief Executive,S.B.I Life a corporate & registered office at Natraj 101,201,301 Junction of Western Express Highway,Andheri,Kurla Road,Andheri(East)Mumbai-400069.  But on 11.10.17 as per the petition of the complainant dated 13.9.17 the said Chief Executive SBI Life was deleted from the list of O.Ps and was replaced by the present O.P No.3.

4.         However, O.P No.3 has contested this case and has filed his separate written version, wherein it is averred that the complaint petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with cost.  In the written version, O.P No.3 has harped on the delay by the complainant of about 2 years for making the claim.  It is also averred that O.P No.3 were not duly informed about such settlement of the claim for which it is prayed by O.P No.3 to dismiss the complaint petition with cost.

            To support the stand, the complainant has submitted his evidence affidavit in the court. On the other hand, O.P No.3 has also filed his evidence on affidavit through the then Manager,Subhodeep Banerjee.

5.         Keeping in mind the averments from the complaint petition and the written versions of O.P No.1 & 3, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues:

            i.          Whether the case is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Issue No.1 & 2:

            For the sake of convenience issues No.1 & 2 are taken up together first here in this case.  The fact of death of the husband of the complainant is undisputed.  It is also undisputed that the deceased husband of the complainant had a policy and onetime premium to the tune Rs.100/- was deducted from the account of the deceased husband of the complainant.  Admittedly, insurance policy is a contract in between the insurer and the insured and violation of any terms of such contract can entitle the insurer to repudiate the same.  O.P No.3 admits about the complainant furnishing an application claiming the assured amount towards the policy of her deceased husband from O.P No.3 but, according to O.P No.3, the said application was filed after elapse of unreasonable delay of time.  On scrutiny, of the case record as well as the documents available therein, it is noticed that the policy holder was not provided with the policy certificate by the O.Ps and the same was provided to the complainant being despatched on 26.12.16.  Thus, inference can well be taken that the delay as alleged by the O.Ps is never onesided, rather, the O.Ps are also at fault by not providing the said policy certificate to the policyholder within a reasonable period of time after the policy was incorporated.  From these discussions, this Commission holds that this case is never barred by law of limitation and is thus definitely maintainable.  Accordingly both the pertinent issues are answered in the affirmative and in support of the complainant.

Issue No.3.

            From the above discussions, it can well be concluded here in this case that undoubtedly the contract of the claim amount is to be enforced and the erring parties (O.Ps) are definitely liable for not settling the claim soon after the death of the deceased husband of the complainant.  The plea taken by the O.Ps that the complainant had never approached to them within a reasonable time and had not cooperated with them for settlement of the claim, does not hold good here in this case and thus such pleas as taken by the O.Ps  shingles down.  Thus, this issue is also answered in the affirmative.  Hence it is ordered;

 

                                                             ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against O.P No.1 & 3 and decreed exparte against O.P No.2.  The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable for the latches caused on their part.  All the O.Ps are thus directed to settle the claim by disbursing the policy amount within a month with effect from 5.10.16(date when complainant approached O.P No.2 for settlement of her claim) along with interest @ 12% per annum till final payment is made in favour of the complainant, who is wife of the deceased.  The complainant is also instructed to cooperate with the O.Ps by submitting the required documents as per procedure within a week after passing of this order.  When the complainant was unnecessarily harassed by the O.Ps thereby causing mental agony to her, this Commission directs the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for her sufferings and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost within a month hence.

            Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 28^th day of April,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                    President

.                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.