Delhi

North

CC/162/2023

SAROJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

26 Sep 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.: 162/2023

 

In the matter of

Dinesh Kumar (Deceased)

Through his wife Mrs Saroj

R/o F73 Gali No. 6

Wazirabad Village

Delhi- 110084                                                                                                                            …       Complainant

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd.

Through its Manager

Sahibabad Branch

New Delhi                                                                                                                                   …       Opposite Party

 

ORDER

26.09.2023

 

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. By way of this order, we shall be deciding the application seeking condonation of delay in filing this complaint by the Complainant as well as on the admissibility of the complaint. The Complainant herein namely Late Shri Dinesh Kumar (now deceased) is represented by his wife namely Mrs Saroj. It is stated that the deceased was having a SB A/c no. 135xxxxxx824 and ATM card bearing no. 4799 xxxx xxxx 5736, with ICICI Bank (OP herein). In the body of the complaint and also in the memo of parties, the branch where the said account was operational is said to be “Sahibabad, Delhi” branch. But the documents filed by the Complainant indicate that the OP had its branch at Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi. The address of the OP as given in the documents filed by the Complainant appears to be correct as one of the documents was issued by OP Bank itself giving the branch address.

2. Late Shri Dinesh Kumar met with an accident and has subsequently expired in Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi on 01/12/2019. It is the case of the Complainant that the said bank account and the ATM carried some benefits to the account holders in case of accidental deaths. It is pertinent to mention here that the Complainant has not filed any document to indicate the benefits associated with the said bank account and ATM. It is only mentioned in the complainant that in case a successful non-ATM transaction of Rs. 499/- or above at least 30 days prior to the date of accident, the account holder was entitled to the accidental death insurance cover in a range of Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 15,00,000/- depending on the type of debit card.

3. The Complainant alleges that the bank was intimated about the death of the account holder Late Shri Dinesh Kumar through an application dated 22/06/2020, but the said OP bank did not take any steps to process the benefits associated with the said bank account in favour of the applicant. It is the case of the Complainant that the said OP Bank has not acted on the request letter given by the Complainant.

4. On the issue of limitation in filing this complaint, it is stated that there is a delay of 96 days in filing of this complaint. It is stated by the Complainant in the condonation of delay application that the wife of the account holder namely Mrs Saroj was visiting the bank regularly, and it was only on 16/12/2022, the bank officials orally informed her that due to internal policy matter, the claimed relief cannot be given to her. It is also stated that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate in filing this complaint.

5. We have perused the records and have gone through the pleadings. The deceased expired on 01/12/2019 and the intimation was sent to the bank on 22.06.2020. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kandimalla Raghavaiah Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. [(2009) 7 SCC 768], in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of calculating the limitation under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, the date on which first cause of action has arisen should be considered. If the death of deceased in considered, the limitation period expired on 01/12/2021. On the other hand, if the letter of intimation to the bank is considered for calculating the limitation period, the limitation period for filing this complaint ended on 22/06/2022.

6. It is important to mention here that in Kandimalla Raghavaiah case (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, if the delay is not duly explained. In the case in hand, the Complainant has not properly explained the reasons for the delay in filing this complaint. She has only stated that some bank official, on 16/12/2022, has orally communicated to her that the death claim could not be disbursed because of come policy issue of the bank. Such an explanation is not sufficient.

7. In the matter of State Bank of India vs B S Agriculture (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Consumer Forum should deal with the merit of the case only if the complaint is filed within the limitation period or if the Complainant has explained the cause of delay. In such case, the Consumer Forum is required to pass a reasoned order condoning a delay.

8. At this stage, it is also important to mention here that in view of the order dated 10/01/2022 In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [MA No. 21 of 2022 in MA No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020] passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court by which Hon’ble Supreme Court has further extended the period of limitation as prescribed under general or special laws of the land in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and also in view of the Office Order No. 7 issued by Hon’ble National Commission vide letter No.A-2/Listing/NCDRC/2021 dated 14/01/2022, the clock of limitation was stopped from 15/03/2020 to 02/10/2021 and the limitation again started running w.e.f. 03/10/2021. In the case in hand, the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 to 02/10/2021 is to be excluded while calculating limitation. Even if the said period is excluded, the Complaint is filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The delay of 96 days as prayed in the application has not been explained properly by the Complainant here. Accordingly, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself.

9. Even on merits of the complaint, we also find certain discrepancies, false statement and concealments in the complaint. We are now dealing with such averments in this complaint.

10. In the complaint, all legal heirs of the deceased are not arrayed as party to the lis. Along with the application seeking condonation of delay, the Complainant has also annexed the copy of the orders passed by Ld. Additional District and Session Judge, MACT-2 (North) Court, Rohini in the motor accidents claim filed by the legal heirs of the deceased. In the said claim, along with the complainant herein, the two minor children and mother of the deceased are also arrayed as legal heirs of the deceased. In the complaint before us, other legal heirs are not arrayed as party Complainants. Assuming that the Complainant herein is the nominee of the benefits for the claims so prayed from the OP Bank, even in such case, there is no document on record to indicate nomination in favour of the Complainant. Further, in absence of other legal heirs, their consent in favour of the Complainant has not been filed.

11. The Complainant has also stated in the complaint that since the death of her husband she is leading her life in turmoil condition running pillar to post for survival of her family. However, it is observed that the Complainant and other legal heirs of the deceased were granted award to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/- by the Ld. MACT Court. Hence, The the statement of hardship as mentioned in the complaint is without any basis.

12. Another important aspect that has crossed out attention that although the letter dated 22.06.2020 was sent to the OP Bank and the bank has duly received the said letter, but the copy of the letter does not have important details i.e name of the applicant/ sender, signature, address and phone number of the applicant and the relationship with the deceased columns are left blank in the said letter. In absence of such important details, it is not possible for the OP Bank to contact the Applicant. Further, as we have already recorded, the Complainant has not filed any document to suggest the entitlement of the deceased qua OP Bank in case of accidental death.

13. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this complaint. This Complaint is accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits at the admission stage itself. No costs.

14. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

15. Order pronounced in open court.

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member