Orissa

Jajapur

CC/65/2018

Nirupama Mishra. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,United Bank of India,Tauntara Branch. - Opp.Party(s)

Srinibas Barik.

07 Aug 2020

ORDER

Nirupama  Mishra ,, W/O  Late Ghanashyama Mishra

At. Padasahi  , P.O. Arei ,P.S.Binjharpur

Dist.Jajpur.                                                                                                       …………….. Complainant.                                                                                                                                                     (Versus)         

1.Branch Manager,United Bank of India,Tauntara Branch ,At.Tauntara

P.O .Kapasi chhak, Via.Debidwar , Dist.Jajpur.

2. Assistant General Manager, U.B.I Head office ,At.United Tower-11

Hemanta  Basu Sarani , Kolkata .                                                                        ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                          

For the Complainant:                                Sri Srinibas Barik , Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties :                                  None

 

                                                                                                     Date of order:   07 .08.2020.

MISS  SMITA  RAY, LADY  MEMBER   .         

Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the petitioner .

            The facts as relevant of the complaint petition in short is that the  deceased  husband of the petitioner  namely Ghanashyam Mishra  included  himself under PMJBY   through O.P.1 .  As per guide line of the scheme  yearly premium of  Rs 330/-  was deducted  by O.P.no.1 from  his S.B account  no. 1066010343664 dt. 20.09.2016  to  cover insurance benefit of Rs . 2,00,000/-   for a period of one year  i.e from 20.9.16 to  19.09.2017. .

That during the above period the deceased husband of the petitioner  died on 24 .07.2017  due  to stroke  and  in that policy , the petitioner  was nominee to avail the benefit . In order to avail such benefit , the petitioner  approached the  O.P.no.1  once  again but the O.P.no.1 did not pay     any heed to  the approach  of the petitioner. Thereafter ,  the petitioner filed  a  complaint against O.P.no.1 bearing no . 1486/ 2017 –18  before the office  of Banking Ombudsmen  who disposed  the  complain  of the petitioner with a  finding dt.23. 02. 2018  that the claim of the petitioner  is pending with the insurer  i.e LIC and the same is  pending with the insurer i.e L.I.C and the same  is being followed up by the bank for settlement .The banking ombudsmen further observed that at this  stage no deficiency  for customer service can be attributed  to the bank  and the bank has acted  as per guide lines in good faith and without  negligence .That due to high handed negligence  of the O.Ps  the petitioner has  sustained monetary loss of Rs. 75,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for her  mental agony and illegal harassment  . she is maintaining her  livelihood by incurring loan from different  persons and the interest due on the said  loan is going on increasing day by day.  That the cause of action  arose on 20.9.16  and 23.02.2018 . The dispute is within the jurisdiction  of this commission . Further as    the  O.P.no.1 refused   to settle the matter  the petitioner is also  entitled to be  compensated  for mental agony and monetary loss.

Accordingly  finding no other alternative  the petitioner  knocked the   door of this commission   with the prayer  necessary  order  be passed  for immediate settlement  of the claim of the petitioner   and compensate the petitioner by paying  Rs.  95,000/- for her  monetary loss, mental agony and illegal  harassment.

            The  notices though  duly served on the O.Pa  but the o.ps did appear nor  choose to contest the dispute  by filing  objection  /  written version . Finding no other alternative this commission has set exparte on the O.ps vide order dt. 11.12.18.

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the  side of the petitioner .  

            After perusal of the record and documents  in details  it is undisputed fact   that  there is an saving account of the deceased  husband of the  petitioner  in the bank of  O.P.no.1 .

  It is also undisputed fact that  an amount of Rs.330/- had been  deducted  from SB account  of the husband of the petition  on 20.09.16 for PMJBY scheme .  But the O.Ps  neither appeared nor filed  any objection or written version  against the allegation /grievance  of the petitioner within stipulated time fixed by this commission  .  Hence they have been set- exparte vide order dt. 11.12.18.

Hence  there is no scope remain  before this commission to accept the uncontroverted statement made by the petitioner  in the complaint petition as per observation   of Hon’ble Odisha  State Commission reported in 2003-CLT-Vol-96-p-15 .C.D.Case No.37/02  wherein it is held that:

In absence of written version by the O.P, the  Commission is bound to accept the uncontroverted statement of the complaint petition.

And

2013(1)CPR-507-N.C ,wherein  it is held that:-

            “In case written version not filed after several opportunity,   it has no defence on merit.”

 

Hence this order

The dispute is allowed  against the O.Ps . The  O.Ps  are directed to settle the insurance  claim  of the petitioner  within two month after receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps  are liable  to pay Rs 20,000/- ( twenty thousand ) as compensation   along with the settlement of Insurance   amount . The petitioner is at liberty to recover the same through due process of lawin case the order is not complied with the stipulated period.

           

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 7th  day of August,2020. under my hand and seal of the Commission.