Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/10/2017

Tarlochan Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

J & K Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Rajmat Singh

24 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.10 of 2017

                                                            Date of institution:  13.02.2017                                   

                                                            Date of decision  :   24.11.2017

 

Tarlochan Kaur Wd/o Late Harpal Singh son of Sh. Bir Singh resident of H.No.376, Sector 1A Loha Mandi Gobindgarh, district Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., G.T.Road Mandi Gobindgarh through its Manager, Mandi Gobindgarh branch-0327, Mandi Gobindgarh District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. P.N.B. Met Life Insurance Company, 2^nd and 3^rd Floor SCO 68-69, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Sh. Inder Jit, Member

                                               

Present :        Sh. Rajmat Singh, Adv., counsel for complainant.

                      Smt. Jasbir Kaur, Representative for OP No.1.

                      Opposite party No.2 exparte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                      Complainant, Tarlochan Kaur Wd/o Late Harpal Singh son of Sh. Bir Singh resident of H.No.376, Sector 1A Loha Mandi Gobindgarh, district Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint, being nominee of her deceased husband, against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The husband of the complainant Sh. Harpal Singh(deceased) was having a saving bank Account No.0327040100004803 with OP No.1 and he obtained a personal consumption loan from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.2,58,000/- on 14.12.2015. OP No.1 being banker purchased insurance policy from OP No.2 and paid Rs.17,000/- as premium to OP No.2 from the bank account of the deceased in order to cover the risk of the loan. OP No.1 assured the deceased that the remaining amount of his loan will be remitted in case of his death. Unfortunately the insured, Sh. Harpal Singh, died on 29.12.2015 and the complainant contacted the manager of OP No.1, who assured her that the matter is being taken up with OP No.2 and also obtained her signature and documents as desired by them in order to send the same to OP No.2 for remitting the balance amount of loan amounting to Rs.1,90,725/- but no action was taken by them.  Thereafter, when the complainant obtained the statement of account of her deceased husband from OP No.1, she found that on 28.09.2016 an amount of Rs.17,000/- has been credited to the said account of her deceased husband Sh. Harpal Singh, by NEFT entry of PNB Met Life India Insurance Company without any reason and information to the complainant.  Both the OPs had made paper entries in the bank account of the deceased in order to save themselves from liability.  Inspite of various requests and visits to the office of OP No.1, no fruitful purpose has been served and they flatly refused to set off the loan against the policy purchased by OP No.1 from OP No.2 on behalf of the deceased. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to adjust, remit the balance amount of loan amounting to Rs.1,90,725/- along with interest and further to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation.

3.                   Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs but OP No.2 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

4.                   The complaint is contested by OP No.1, who filed the written version. In the written version OP No.1 admitted that it had insured the deceased with PNB Metlife Endowment saving plan on 14.12.2015, with a yearly premium of Rs.17,000/- by crediting PNB Metlife account No.0408010100000134 maintained with their branch office Ansal Plaza New Delhi.  The OP No.1 has passed on the payment to PNB Metlife on 14.12.2015, vide its transaction ID s11683891 for Rs.17,000/- against Metlife Endowment saving plan vide their application No.194100037.  The OP No.1 further stated that it vigorously followed up with OP No.2 for the settlement of the claim of the deceased.

5.                   In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence true copies of documents i.e. statements of account Ex. C-1 & C-2, certificate of cause of death Ex. C-3, death certificate Ex. C-4, her affidavit Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Bansi Lal, Manager Ex. OP1/1, statement of account Ex. OP1/2 and closed the evidence.

6.                    Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that OP No.1 bank, purchased insurance policy from OP No.2 and paid Rs.17,000/- as premium to OP No.2 from the bank account of the deceased in order to cover the risk of the loan. He pleaded that OP No.1 assured the deceased that the remaining amount of his loan will be remitted in case of his death. Learned counsel further pleaded that the OPs have not settled the claim till date. He argued that the act and conduct of the OPs shows that OPs have committed deficiency in service by not deciding the claim of the deceased husband of the complainant.

7.         On the other hand, OP no.1 stated that deceased was insured with OP No.2 and the OP no.1 had passed the payments of the premiums to OP no.2. It was stated that OP no.1 was vigorously following up the matter with OP no.2 for settlement.

8.         After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find force in the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. It is an admitted case that OP no.1 had got the deceased  husband insured with OP no.2 and the claim of the deceased husband has not been settled till date. OP no.1 has failed to place on record any cogent evidence to prove that the claim form was forwarded by OP no.1 to OP no.2 for settlement of the claim. In our view, the complainant was rather kept in dark, as regard to the status and settlement of the claim by the OPs. The OP no.2 despite service did not choose to appear and rebut the allegations of the complainant, hence the same are presumed to be admitted. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case Ms.Shefali Bhargava Vs Indraprastha Appollo Hospital & Anr,2003(1)CPJ 216 NC, wherein, it was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that “where party was in a position to produce evidence, if not produced the same, must suffer from adverse inference”.

9.         Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Ms.Shefali Bhargava Vs Indraprastha Appollo Hospital & Anr, (Supra) , we find that the OPs have committed deficiency in service by not settling the claim of the deceased  husband of complainant and thereafter not proving her adequate information about the status of the claim. Hence, we direct the OPs jointly and severally to remit, adjust the balance of  loan amounting to Rs.190725/-.We also find that complainant is entitled to compensation on account of mental agony amounting to Rs.10,000/- alongwith litigation cost of  Rs. 5000/-. Accordingly the present complaint is hereby stands allowed.

10.       The arguments on the complaint were heard on 17.11.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 24.11.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)

President

 

(Inder Jit) 

 Member