Delhi

StateCommission

A/09/599

CITI BANK N.A - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEPANSHU KR. AND ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jul 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                   Date of Decision: 24.07.2015

First Appeal No. 599/2009

(Arising out of the order dated 16.03.2009 passed in complaint case No. 1134/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi)

 

In the matter of:

 

Citibank N.A.

Jeevan Bharti Building

Connaught Place, New Delhi

 

Also at:-

 

Citibank N.A.

PO Box 4830, Anna Salai PO

Chennai-600002                                ........Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Sh. Deepanshu Kumar

S/o Late Sh. Pradeep Kumar

2. Mrs. Shalini Kumari

D/o Late Sh. Pradeep Kumar

3. Mrs. Preeti Kumari

D/o Late Sh. Pradeep Kumar

 

All R/o 48/7, Bangalow Road

Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007       .......Respondents

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                     -                      Member (Judicial)

S C JAIN                                             -                      Member

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGMENT

 

1.       Appellant has filed the present appeal against the orders dt. 16.03.2009 passed by the Ld. District Forum-VI. Vide impugned orders the appellant was directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 18,75,000/- besides compensation of Rs. 1 Lac and litigation charges of Rs. 5,000/-.

(Parties hereinafter shall be referred by their status in the District Forum)

2.       Complainant-1 is the son of the deceased Sh. Pradeep Kumar whereas complainants-2 & 3 are his daughters. The deceased Sh. Pradeep Kumar during his life time took a credit card from the OP known CITI Bank MTV Card which was having personal accident insurance cover upto Rs. 25 Lacs in case of death/total disablement as a result of an accident. The aforesaid insurance cover of Rs. 25 Lac was admissible in case the accident was caused by a four wheeler vehicle.  In case of an accident caused by a two wheeler vehicle leading to death or permanent disablement, insurance cover was for an amount of Rs. 18.75 Lacs. Deceased in the present case was using another credit card known as Citibank Gold Card which too had an insurance cover of Rs. 25 Lacs. The deceased alongwith his wife was on a motorcycle on 09.09.2006 when he met with an accident at traffic lights at 11 Murti, S.P. Marg, New Delhi. Wife of the deceased died on the spot. Deceased died in Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi on 11.09.2006. The offending vehicle could not be traced. Report, ‘untraced’ dt. 08.02.2007 was submitted by the police. Son and daughters of the deceased were the complainants in the present case. OP repudiated the claim vide its order dt. 01.05.2008 on the grounds that the insurance coverage was to be effective from 01.12.2004. Deceased was registered for the same on 01.11.2004. On 24.11.2004 deceased made a telephonic call to the OP asking for cancellation of the policy. Acting upon the instructions of the deceased, coverage was cancelled. Upon notice from the District Forum OP did not put in appearance. OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dt. 19.09.2008. On the basis of unrebutted evidence, the Ld. District Forum passed the abovesaid directions which are impugned by way of present appeal.
3.       In the present appeal, the OP i.e. Citi Bank N.A. has contended that the deceased had opted for credit shield plus on 01.11.2004 provided to him through TATA AIG Life Insurance Company. Contention of the OP is that the deceased was registered for the aforesaid scheme on 01.11.2004 and the coverage was to take effect from 01.12.2004. On 24.11.2004 the deceased made a telephonic call to the OP asking for cancellation of the policy. Acting upon his instructions, the OP cancelled the insurance policy. Next contention of the OP is that the deceased had not paid any premium towards the policy.
4.       Arguments have been addressed at length by the counsel for the OP Ms. Swati Singh and Sh. Vinod Malhotra Counsel for the Complainants.
5.       Now, we are confronted with the question as to whether on the date of death of the deceased, the deceased was covered under insurance or not. The sole defence raised by the OP is that the deceased telephoned at telephone service centre of the OP and asked for cancellation of the policy on 24.11.2004. It was while acting upon his instructions that the OP cancelled the insurance coverage. Nothing has been placed on record by the OP in support of his contention that there was a telephonic call from the deceased on 24.11.2004. No record relating to the cancellation of the insurance policy in the records held by the OP has been placed on judicial record. Telephonic call might not have been recorded but the entries made by the OP, if any, on or around 24.11.2004 could have been filed. In the absence of any such record, we are left with no choice but to hold that the plea raised by the OP is only an alibi.
6.        Coming to the contention of the OP that the deceased had not paid any premium, OP in its letter dt. 01.05.2008 written to the LRs of the deceased had waived the entire outstanding amount towards user of the cards. The brochure given by the OP to the deceased, and not denied by the OP, clearly shows that the premium was to be deducted from the account of the credit card held by the deceased. The lapse, if any, for non payment of premium, was on the part of the OP and not the deceased. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Ld. District Forum. Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.
7.       Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
8.       FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

(S C JAIN)

144616126. MEMBER