Haryana

StateCommission

A/1126/2016

HDFC ERGO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHABIR SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

PRADEEP KUMAR

14 Dec 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1126 of 2016

Date of Institution:        25.11.2016

Date of Decision :         14.12.2017

 

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, Zone North, Card Claims, Claims Manager, HDFC, ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, 5^th Floor, Tower 1, Stellar IT Park, C-25, Sector 62, Noida-201301, through its Authorised Officer.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1.      Mahabir Sharma s/o Sh. Om Parkash, Resident of Kabirpur, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Atlas Road, Sonipat.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.            

 

Argued by:          Shri Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ashish Pannu, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Rajnikant Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                                                   O R D E R

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                   This appeal has been preferred against the order dated August 22^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                In the year 2014, Prime Minister of India launched a public welfare scheme known as ‘The Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana’ (for short the ‘Jan Dhan Yojna’) to encourage more and more public persons to open their accounts in banks. To encourage and make more attractive this loudable scheme, certain benefits were offered to the public persons who are found willing to open their accounts in banks under this scheme. The public persons were entitled to open their accounts with zero balance and with insurance cover to the account holder. Under the above mentioned scheme, Balram son of the complainant opened his account bearing No.34099057813 in State Bank of India (SBI), Atlas Road Branch, Sonipat – Opposite Party No.1 (respondent No.2 herein). As per scheme, the concerned bank was required to issue a Rupay Debit Card providing insurance cover to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac in case of accidental death of the account holder. The account was opened by Balram on August 29^th, 2014. Thereafter, unfortunately Balram died in a motor vehicle accident on December 03^rd, 2014. First Information Report (FIR) No.2275 (Exhibit C-3) was lodged regarding this accident on December 03^rd, 2014 at Police Station Mangol Puri, Delhi. The complainant submitted insurance claim on account of death of his son Balram @ Raman after completing necessary formalities along with relevant documents with the opposite parties. The insurance claim of the complainant was not accepted by the opposite parties on the ground that the terms and conditions of the scheme were not fulfilled. 

3.                The complainant alleged that it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1.00 lac to the complainant under accentual death insurance policy.

4.                Opposite Party No.1 – State Bank of India in its written version has taken plea that the saving bank account was opened by deceased Balram on August 29^th, 2014 while the financial Inclusion opening of accounts under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna came into force on September 03^rd, 2014 as per circular issued by Rural Business-NF Micro Finance & Financial Inclus and as such the account opened by the deceased Balram does not come under the rules of life cover provided under the Jan Dhan Yojna. State Bank of India was not bound to issue Rupay Debit Card which have an un-built accidental insurance cover up to rupees one lac. More over, Balram did not apply for issuance of Rupay Debit Card during his life time after coming into force of the said scheme. In this way, Balram son of the complainant was not insured under the Jan Dhan Yojna and he did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the scheme. The complainant is not entitled for any relief under the above mentioned scheme and compensation as prayed in the complaint. The opposite party No.1 prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                Opposite Party No.2 – HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) in its written version has taken plea that no claim was ever lodged by the complainant with the opposite party No.2. It is pleaded that son of the complainant namely Balram @ Raman was insured under the scheme and abide by all the terms , conditions, rules and regulations of the Jan Dhan Yojna. The opposite party No.2 has taken plea that a Group Personal Accidental policy No.2999200723397400000 regarding the period from April 01^st, 2014 up to March 31^st, 2015 issued to National Payment Corporation of India for Rs.16,000,000/- unnamed beneficiaries under Pardhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna scheme was issued from Noida. So, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

6.                Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

7.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated August 22^nd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, Sonipat, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant-Mahabir Sharma and an amount of Rs.50,000/- to Smt. Rani wife of the complainant, who is mother of deceased Balram @ Raman.

8.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated August 22^nd, 2016, the opposite party No.2 – HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal bearing No.1126 of 2016 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

9.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

10.              It is admitted fact that Balram @ Raman opened his account in State Bank of India, Atlas Road Branch, Sonipat on August 29^th, 2014 under account No.34099057813. During the course of arguments, there was also no controversy that Balram @ Raman breathed his last due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident on December 03^rd, 2014. Balram @ Raman was travelling on a motorcycle which met with an accident with a WAGON R car bearing registration No.HR-69AT-4193. First Information Report (FIR) No.2275 Exhibit C-3 was lodged in Police Station Mangolpuri, New Delhi. In this way, it stands proved that Balram @ Raman died an accidental death and he was having an account in State Bank of India, Atlas Road Branch, Sonipat, since August 29^th, 2014.

11.              During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party No.2 argued that the complainant is not entitled to receive any amount under this scheme as he was not issued a Rupay Debit Card and the District Forum, Sonipat has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint as the insurance scheme was issued from Noida where office of the opposite party No.2 exists.

12.              It is admitted fact that the bank account under Prime Minister Jan Dhan Yojna was opened in State Bank of India, Atlas Road Branch, Sonipat. Under the scheme as and when the account was opened, it was the duty of the Bank Manager concerned to issued Rupay Debit Card. We feel the complainant was not required to request the bank in writing to issue him Rupay Debit Card. As and when the account was opened, it was the duty of the Bank Manager to issue Rupay Debit Card. The opposite parties cannot be allaowed to take benefit of their own mistakes. Due to causing delay in issuance of Rupay Debit Card, the family members of the deceased cannot be penalized. We feel due to this reason, the insurance claim of the complainant cannot be declined. The office of the opposite party No.1 exists in the area of Sonipat District within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Sonipat. The cause of action in this case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Sonipat. Much discussion is not needed on this point of controversy. The Prime Minister Jan Dhan Yojna insurance cover has been provided under the said scheme. If the necessary directions were given in this regard at Nodia, it does not mean that each and every citizen throughout the Country shall file insurance claim petitions at Noida.

13.              During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party No.2 also argued that needed circular (Annexure R-1) was issued by State Bank of India on September 03^rd, 2014 and directions were given to all branches and offices of State Bank of India regarding the above said Jan Dhan Yojna. It is evident from the letter Annexure R-1 itself that the above said Jan Dhan Yojna was announced by the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on August 15^th, 2014 and the scheme was launched across the Coauntry on August 28^th, 2014. In the same letter directions have also been given to issue Rupay Debit Cards which is an un-built accidental cover up to Rs.1.00 lac. In the same letter it is also mentioned that there is no separate product code for the above mentioned Jan Dhan Yojna and existing account holders are not required to open fresh accounts under this scheme. The Rupay Debit Card can be issued against existing account also. So, facts and circumstances are very clear that Balram @ Raman son of the complainant opened his account in State Bank of India on August 29^th, 2014 after the Prime Minister Jan Dhan Yojna came into force with effect from August 28^th, 2014. Moreover, the opposite party No.2 in its written version has nowhere raised dispute regarding opening of the bank account in the name of Balram @ Raman under the Prime Minister Jan Dhan Yojna. Only grievance of the opposite party No.2 is that no request was made by the complainant to the Insurance Company in this regard. Balram @ Raman died leaving behind his father – Mahabir Sharma and his mother Smt. Rani, as rightful successors. In these circumstances, the findings of the learned District Forum to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and an amount of Rs.50,000/- to Smt. Rani wife of the complainant, are justified.

14.              No other point was raised during the course of arguments.

15.              As a result, as per discussions above in detail, we find no illegally and invalidity in the impugned order dated August 22^nd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum does not require any interference. Hence, the findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal filed by the appellant-opposite party No.2 stands dismissed. 

16.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 14.12.2017

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

Balbir Singh Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL