Haryana

StateCommission

A/1386/2017

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARAMJIT KAUR - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN CHAWLA

10 Jan 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

 

                                                         First Appeal No  :      1386 of 2017

Date of Institution:      16.11.2017

Date of Decision :       10.01.2018

 

 

Punjab National Bank, Branch Thana Chhappar, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager (through Sh. Uday Singh Chauhan son of Sh. Isam Singh, Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Thana Chhappar, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

 

Paramjit Kaur wife of Gurcharan Singh aged 58 years, resident of Village and Post Office Fatehpur, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

 

 

Present:               Shri Varun Chawla, Advocate for appellant.

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Punjab National Bank-opposite party (for short, ‘Bank’) is in appeal against the order dated September 25^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby it directed the bank to pay Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint, that is, September 25^th, 2013 till its realization to Paramjit Kaur-complainant on account of death of her son Amandeep Singh.

2.      Amandeep Singh was maintaining Saving Bank Account No.1419000103162188 with the bank.  The bank also issued debit card bearing No.5176520140733739 to him.  On November 12^th, 2011 the complainant met with an accident.  He died on November 14^th, 2011.  He was insured with the bank for Rs.50,000/-.  The bank did not settle the claim on the ground that at the time of accident, Amandeep Singh was not having any driving licence.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum. 

3.      Indisputably, Amandeep died in an accident.  He was insured with the bank.  The complainant could not produce the driving licence of Amandeep Singh because the driving licence was lost. The presumption of absence of driving licence would have been available only in the event, the driver was alive.  The bank cannot deny to indemnify the complainant.  Thus, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

 

 

Announced 10.01.2018

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

U.K