Haryana

Karnal

CC/620/2020

Aasha - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Saini

20 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No.620 of 2020

                                                      Date of instt.28.12.2020

                                                      Date of Decision:20.02.2024

 

1. Aasha wife of late Shri Sharvan Kumar.
2. Devanshi minor daughter of late Shri Sharvan Kumar, through her mother Aasha (complainant no.1) as being natural guardian and next friend, who has got no adverse with that of minor.
3. Kela Devi wife of Shri Jodha Ram.
4. Jodha Ram son of Shri Kabadi Ram, all residents of village Bara Goan, tehsil and District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

1. ICICI Bank, Shop no.103, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited, Sector-8, HUDA Market, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

               

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Suman Singh…….Member

       

Argued by:   Shri Surjeet Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.

                     Shri Amish Goel, counsel for the OP no.1.

                     Shri Gaurav Gupta, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:                     

      

                 The complainants have filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant  no.1 is widow, complainant no.2 is minor daughter and complainants nos. 3 and 4 are the parents of deceased Shri Sharvan Kumar. The deceased Sharvan Kumar was maintaining a saving bank account no.3703011500979 with the OP no.1. The OP bank issued a privilege banking debit card, visa platinum bearing no.4018-0637-0300-4002 (valid from 12/16 to 11/21) 500979 Visa Debit Card and he was using the said debit card for withdrawing the money from time to time on which the OP no.1 used to charge requisite amount from time to time on the use of said debit card.  Unfortunately, the husband of the complainant no.1 died in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 16.07.2018 and a case vide FIR no.805 dated 17.07.2018 under sections 279,304A and 337 of IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle with Police Station Sadar, Karnal.  Being legal heir/successor of late Shri Sharvan Kumar the complainants are entitled to get all the benefits from the OPs on his behalf and on behalf of minor children. As per the guidelines and scheme of the OP bank, an account holder who has been issued debit card is automatically insured for Rs.5,00,000/- in the event of his death and in this instance, the husband of complainant no.1 died in an accident. Thus, being successor/legal heir of late Shri Sharvan Kumar, the complainants are entitled to get all the benefits from the OPs with respect to debit card issued by the OP bank. Thereafter, complainants approached the OPs and claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith all other benefits relating to debit card, on account of the death of her husband Shri Sharvan Kumar she submitted all the necessary documents before the OP no.1 but they started postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and in the end, the OPs flatly refused to release the genuine claim of complainant. Then complainants served a legal notice dated 07.03.2020 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. It is pertinent to mention here that complainants have earlier filed the similar case before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Karnal but the same was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 13.12.2019. The date of institution of the present case before Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Service, Karnal is 19.12.2018 and after a long period of more than one year, the OP no.1 filed the reply that the bank is not eligible for processing the claim of complainant and complainant should lodge her claim before ICICI Lombard General insurance Company. Accordingly, the present complaint is being filed by the complainants before this Commission. Thus, there is no any delay on the part of the complainants for filing the present complaint. Hence there is defence in service on the part of OP-1.

2.             On notice, initially, Shri Amish Goel Advocate appeared on behalf of OP no.1. On 10.09.2021, d counsel for the complainant has given up the OP no.1 being unnecessary party.

 3.            OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability. On merits, it is pleaded that present complaint is pre-mature, as till date complainants have not intimated the OPs regarding the death of Sharvan Kumar and have not lodged claim with the OPs regarding the death of Sharvan Kumar. Claim form and other documents which has to be duly filled by complainants are still pending. Due to non-intimation of loss, no investigation has been conducted by the company. It is further pleaded that complainants have arrayed ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited as OP no.2. But neither complainants nor OP no.1 have placed on record, any claim intimation record, repudiation letter issued by the OP no.2, in lieu of insurance against Visa Debit Card. As per record of office of OP no.2, till date no claim has been lodged by complainants to OP no.2 for claiming the compensation of death of Sharvan Kumar. In the absence of any claim intimation documents to OP no.2, claim number, repudiation letter or policy particulars thus it is not possible for OP no.2 to trace the record of complainant and to find out the genuineness of the documents. The OP after receiving the present complaint come to know regarding the death of Sharvan Kumar. Prior to receiving the complaint this fact was not intimated to OP and no claim was lodged by the complainants. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable being premature. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.2.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainants has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant no.1 Ex.C1, copy of aadhar card of Aasha Ex.C2, copy of aadhar card of Devanshi Ex.C3, copy of aahdar card of Jodha Ex.C4, copy of aadhar card of Kela Devi  Ex.C5, postal receipt Ex.C6, copy of legal notice Ex.C7, certified copy of order dated 13.12.2019 of PLA Ex.C8, certified copy of statement of counsel Ex.C9, copy of bank statement of Sharvan Kumar Ex.C10, copy of ATM card Ex.C11 copy of FIR Ex.C12, copy of post mortem report of Sharvan Kumar Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on 01.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sonu Rathi, Legal Manager Ex.RW2/A, copy of terms and conditions of the policy Ex.R2/1 and closed the evidence on 02.08.2023 by suffering his separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that Sharvan Kumar (since deceased) was maintaining a saving bank account with the OP no.1. The OP bank issued a privilege banking debit card, visa platinum to Sharvan Kumar.  Sharvan Kuamr died on 16.07.2018 in a road side accident. As per the guidelines and scheme of the OP bank, an account holder who has been issued debit card is automatically insured for Rs.5,00,000/- in the event of his death in an accident. Thus, being successors/legal heirs of late Shri Sharvan Kumar are entitled to get all the benefits from the OPs with respect to debit card issued by the OP bank. Complainants approached the OPs and claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith all other benefits relating to debit card, on account of the death Shri Sharvan Kumar and submitted all the necessary documents before the OP no.1 but OPs did not pay the claim and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complaint is premature as complainant has neither sent any intimation to the OP regarding the death of insured nor lodged any claim with the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The OPs have alleged that till date complainants have not intimated regarding the death of insured Sharvan Kumar nor they have lodged the claim with the OPs. On other hand, complainants have alleged that they have intimated the OPs and also submitted the claim. The onus to prove their version was relied upon the complainants but they have miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence.  Moreover, the complainants have also failed to disclose date and month for submission of claim with the OPs.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

 11.          Complainant no.1 Aasha Rani had filed the application under section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for settlement of the dispute.  The said application has been withdrawn by the complainant, vide order Ex.C8 dated 13.12.2019 with the liberty to file afresh case before the competent court of law. Present complaint has been filed on 28.12.2020 and legal notice Ex.C7 dated 07.03.2020 was served upon the OPs. In the said legal notice, it is nowhere mentioned that complainants have submitted the claim with the OPs at any stage. If the complainants had submitted the claim with the OPs there should have been no need to serve the said notice. It has been proved on the record that complainants have neither intimated the OPs with regard to death of the insured nor lodged the claim. Thus, we are of the considered view that complainants have not lodged the claim with the OPs.  Hence, in view of the above, the present complaint is premature and is not maintainable at this stage.

12.           In view of the above observation, the present complaint is disposed of with the liberty to the complainants to lodged the claim alongwith required/ relevant documents with the OP No. 2 i.e (insurance company)  and on receipt of the same, OP No.2 is hereby directed to settle the claim of the complainants within 60 days, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:20.02.2024                                                                                                            

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Suman Singh)

                          Member                           Member