Delhi

North East

CC/7/2018

saroj Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dena Bank - Opp.Party(s)

24 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 07/18

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

Smt. Saroj Kumari

D/o Shri Malkhan Singh

R/o B/115, Street No. 3

Brij Puri, Dayalpur

Delhi – 110 094                                                                                            Complainant

	Versus

1. Dena Bank

Through its branch manager

C-2/25A, Yamuna Vihar

Delhi – 110 053

2. LIC of India

Through Div. manager (P&GS)

Division Office – II

9^th floor, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 092

3. Ministry of Finance

DFS, Jeevandeep Building

New Delhi                                                                                   Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:                ORDER RESERVED ON:                DATE OF ORDER:

09.01.2018 21.12.2021 24.12.2021

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

             The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.         Case of the Complainant

            The case of the Complainant is that she is daughter of Late Smt. Kamlesh and Shri Malkhan Singh.  The mother of the Complainant Late  Smt. Kamlesh opened an account under Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna (PMJDY) with zero balance.  The said account was opened in Dena Bank (OP-1) on 20.09.2014.  The number of the said account was 144910040795.  The Complainant was nominee and beneficiary of the said account.  The said account was having an accidental cover of Rs.1,00,000/- and life cover of Rs.30,000/- payable on the death of the beneficiary.  The mother of the Complainant was shot dead on 28.10.2014.  Then, the Complainant approached the bank for claiming accidental insurance cover of Rs.1,00,000/- and life insurance of Rs. 30,000/-  The Complainant received Rs.1,00,000/- on account of accidental insurance cover, but the Opposite Parties  did not pay Rs.30,000/- as per the terms of Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna scheme on account of life cover.  Thereafter, the Complainant approached various authorities, but of no avail.  The Complainant has prayed for directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.30,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. and also requested for paying compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment along with Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.         In order to prove her case, the Complainant has filed her affidavit wherein she has supported her case.  She has also filed documents such as copy of Aadhar Card (Ex.CW1/1), copy of Aadhar card of her mother and bank passbook (Ex.CW1/2) and (Ex.CW1/3) and copy of death certificate of deceased Smt. Kamlesh (Ex.CW1/4)

4.         Case of Opposite Party-1 (Dena Bank)

The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed written statement wherein it raised the objections that the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and alleged that it has no role in the payment of the amount claimed by the Complainant.   It is admitted that account was opened by the mother of the Complainant.  It is also stated that it is a matter of record that Complainant received claim under accidental cover. It is stated that claim of the Complainant was rejected by Life Insurance Corporation of India (OP-2) and the role of Opposite Party No.1 was only to forward the claim of the Complainant to Opposite Party No. 2.  It is also stated that the complainant has no cause of action against it and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against it.

5.         In order to prove his case, the Opposite Party No. 1 has filed the affidavit of Shri Dushyant, Branch Manager of Dena Bank, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi – 110 053.  It has also relied upon the documents such as documents related to scheme (Ex.RW1/1), document regarding eligibility criteria (Ex.RW1/2) and PMJDY modification (Ex.RW1/3). 

6.         Case of Opposite Party -2 (Life Insurance Corporation of India)

Opposite Party No. 2 contested the Complainant and file Written Statement wherein it raised the objection that complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant has concealed the material facts.  The Complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands.  It is alleged that the mother of the Complainant Smt. Kamlesh opened the account in question on 20.09.2014 and her date of birth as per the Aadhar Card is 01.01.1950 which shows that deceased Kamlesh was more than 60 years of age at the time of opening the account in question.  It is stated that as per the government circular in respect of the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna Scheme, the person should normally be head of the family or an earning member of the family and he should be in the age group of 18-59 years.  It is stated that no cause of action ever arose in favour of the Complainant and therefore, the claim is liable to be dismissed.  It is alleged that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case and the claim is barred by limitation. Opposite Party No. 2 has denied the averments made by the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.         In order to prove his case, the Opposite Party No. 2 has filed the affidavit of Ms. Dipa Sinha, Manager (L&HPF) at Life Insurance Corporation of India.  It has also relied upon the documents such as copy of relevant page of Administrative Procedure of PMJDY (Ex. RW1/A).

8.         Defence of Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. Ministry of Finance was struck off vide order dated 17.07.2018.

9.         We have already heard Ld. Counsels for the Complainant, Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2.  We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant, Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party   No. 2.

10.      Opposite Party No. 2 has filed Exhibit RW1/A which is details of the scheme regarding the life cover of Rs. 30,000/- under PMJDY.  The relevant portions of the said exhibit are re-produced hereunder:-

Introduction : -

This Rs. 30,000/- life insurance cover is called as Life Cover under Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna, which will serve to give a life insurance cover on death of the life assured, due to any reason, to the deceased’s family. 

Features:

1.  Age group 18 completed to 59 (Nearer Birth Day)

Basic Eligibility Conditions:

(ii) The person should normally be head of the family or an earning member of the family and should be in the age group of 18 to 59 (i.e. person should be at least 18 years old, and should not have turned 60).  In case the head of family is 60 years or more of age, the second earning person of the family in the above mentioned age group will be covered, subject to eligibility. 

11.      The Complainant did not controvert Exhibit RW1/A, nor she produced any rules to the contrary.  Therefore, Exhibit RW1/A has to be believed which is a Government Circular/Administrative Procedure.

12.      Admittedly, Smt. Kamlesh, the mother of the Complainant was more than 60 years of age, therefore, in view of the above referred administrative procedure, as mentioned in Exhibit RW1/A, the Complainant is not eligible to receive the claim under life cover of Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna.  Admittedly, she has already claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of accidental cover of the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna.

13.      In view of the discussion above, the complaint filed by the Complainant is without any merit and is dismissed accordingly.  No order as to the cost.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)                                              (Surinder Kumar Sharma)      

       (Member)                                                                          (President)