District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.559/2021.
Date of Institution: 27.10.2021.
Date of Order: 17.08.2022.
Smt. Nibha W/o Shri Balbir Kumar R/o B-135, Bhagat Singh Colony, Ballabgarh, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. National Insurance co. Ltd., through Manager/Authorized representative, Second floor, Core-IIIrd, Sope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, Delhi – 110 092.
2. Bank of Baroda through Manager, Nehru Ground, Faridabad.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Shri Gaurav Jain, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Neeraj Kumar, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Shri Kapil Dev, counsel for opposite party No.2
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the husband of the complainant was holding saving account No. “01080100015030 with the opposite party No.2 since 2014. A scheme of insurance was launched under the name “Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna” in which the insured was covered for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in case of death due to accident. The premium of the said insurance cover was Rs.12/- per annum. The husband of the complainant availed the services of opposite party No.1 through his bank which was opposite party No.2. An amount of Rs.12 per annum was deducted on the instructions of the husband(deceased) of the complainant every year from the bank in favour of opposite party No.1. On 4.5.2020 the husband of the complainant died in accident regarding which a FIR NO.0235 under section 188/279 and 304-A dated 05.05.2020 was lodged and the prosecution against the accused were pending. The complainant moved an application to claim the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith requisite documents to the opposite party No.1 but the claim was rejected due to non-confirmation of the nominee in the account. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 to confirm the nominee name where the complainant found that the name of nominee was wrongly entered in the books inadvertently by the husband. The complainant fulfilled all the documentary requirements asked by opposite party No.2 for correction of name of nominee and accordingly opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that the name of the nominee had been corrected and forward to opposite party No.1 for further processing. The complainant approached so many times to the opposite party No.1 to release the claim amount but opposite party No.1 denied doing the same and vide letter dated 09.03.2021 the opposite party No.2 denied to pass the claim and closed the file. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) release claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% from the dte of first representation for claim before either of opposite parties till its realization..
b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had no locus standi to file the present complaint. The opposite party had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant because at the time of claim form the complainant not submitted any documents relating to the reimbursement of claim inspite of various emails, letters and reminder regarding submission of documents of nominee of the deceased. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had not come with clean hands and had suppressed the true facts and averments form this Hon’ble Court only to get relief against the replying opposite party No.2. There was no cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant and against the replying opposite party. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– National Insurance company Ltd. Etc. with the prayer to: a) release claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of first representation for claim before either of opposite parties till its realization. b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, affidavit of Smt. Nibha, Ex.C-1 – Customer Account Ledge Report from 01.04.20199 to 01.07.2020, Ex,C-2 – FIR, Ex.C-3 – Death certificate, Ex.C4 – Adhar card, Ex.C-5 & 6 – pan cards,, Ex,C-7 statement, Ex.C-8 – letter dated 10.09.2020 regarding disbursement of pension sanctioned , Ex.C-9 – Pension payment order:EPS-95, Ex.C-10 – No claim letter.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1. strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Rameshwar, Administrative Officer, National Insurance Co. Ltd. NIT, Faridabad., Ex.R-1 – No claim letter.
Evidence of opposite party No.2 has not filed. Hence, the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2 has been closed.
7. In this case, the husband of the complainant was holding saving account No. “01080100015030 with the opposite party No.2 since 2014. A scheme of insurance was launched under the name “Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna” in which the insured was covered for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in case of death due to accident. The husband of the complainant availed the services of opposite party No.1 through his bank which was opposite party No.2. An amount of Rs.12 per annum was deducted on the instructions of the husband(deceased) of the complainant every year from the bank in favour of opposite party No.1. On 4.5.2020 the husband of the complainant died in accident regarding which a FIR NO.0235 under section 188/279 and 304-A dated 05.05.2020 was lodged and the prosecution against the accused were pending.
On the other hand, opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 09.03.2021 (Ex.C-10) on the ground of non compliance of requirement for information/documents, the claim is closed as No Claims due to nominee of the insured could not submit the required documents
after sending the final reminder mail dated 20.01.2021.
8. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed, subject to submission of documents of L.Rs/nominee of the deceased by the complainant. There are no orders as to cost because the complainant has not submitted the required informations/documents to the opposite party after sending the various reminders. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 17.08.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
