Punjab

Patiala

CC/17/108

Kanta Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Dhiraj Puri

17 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 108 of 28.2.2017

                                      Decided on:           17.2.2023

 

Kanta Rani aged 60 years wd/o late Sh.Dharam Pal Gupta r/o H.No.72, Naggar Enclave, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Punjab National Bank, through its Branch Manager, Improvement Trust Building Branch Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Dhiraj Puri, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Dinesh Sharma, counsel for OP.

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Kanta Rani wd/o Late Sh.Dharam Pal Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:
3.           That his husband namely Dharam Pal was having a joint account No.2918000400202851 alongwith her daughter-in-law namely Anupama Singla w/o Sandeep Singla, with the OP. At the time of opening of said account, OP also issued ATM card with the provisions, free accidental insurance of Rs.one lac, that if in the event the ATM holder dies, his family can claim the insurance amount. Husband of the complainant passed away on 2.11.2016 in an accident. Complainant claim insurance claim from the OP but the was refused with the reason that the complainant has not used the ATM within 90 days from the date of death. The complainant submitted that old ATM card was expired and husband of the complainant requested OP to reissue the fresh ATM card but the same was never issued by the OP instead they regularly deducted annual ATM charges from the account of husband of the complainant. Complainant sent legal notice dated 2.3.2017 in this regard. Again the OP vide reply dated 6.4.2017 refused to pay the insurance amount. Hence the act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service .Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.
4. Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement having taken various preliminary objections. It is pleaded that as per the bank guidelines, benefits of the scheme shall be extended to only ‘Active ATM/Debit card holders. An active card holder is defined as a customer who had used his/her card for a financial transaction within 90 days preceding the date of incidence i.e. the accident leading to the untimely death of the card holder.
5. In the present case, as per the statement of accounts, no transaction with ATM has been done in the said account since the date of transfer of this account at the branch of OP bank. Thus the insurance policy automatically not covered the card holder and he is not entitled for any benefit from the insurance policy. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OP prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
6. In support of the complaint, ld. counsel for the complainant adduced Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C1 copy of passbook, Ex.C2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C3 postal receipt,Ex.C4 copy of reply to legal notice and closed evidence.
7. Ld. counsel for the OP furnished affidavit, Ex.OPA of Ms.Mamta, Deputy Manager, PNB alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The complainant has averred that her husband was having a joint saving account Ex.C1 alongwith her daughter-in-law with the OP.An ATM card was issued against the said account and the account holder was covered with pre accidental insurance upto Rs.one lac, in case of death of card holder. Husband of the complainant died in an accident on 2.11.2016.Complainant lodged claim with the OP but the same was refused on the ground that the account holder has not done any transaction within last 90 days through the said ATM card (Ex.C4).Legal notice dated 2.3.2017 was then served upon the OP (Ex.C2) but no fruitful purpose was served. Complainant has also alleged that old ATM card was expired and new ATM card was not issued even after repeated requests.
10. The OP in its reply has relied upon the monetary compensation scheme Ex.OP1, as per which various types of ATM card holders were insured incase of accidental death for different amounts subject to the condition (Ex.OP2) that the benefit of the scheme shall be applicable to only active PNB ATM/debit card holders i.e. the customer who had used his/her card for financial transaction within 90 days preceding the date of accident i.e. accident leading untimely death of the card holder.
11. Perusal of the account statement, Ex.C1 indicates that same is upto 5/2014 and the last transaction through ATM was done during 10/2009 i.e. almost 7 years before the death of husband of the complainant. From the perusal of the above averments and evidence adduced by the parties, it transpires that the complainant has not placed on record any ATM card which was being used by the complainant. Moreover, the claim of the complainant for Rs.one lac as insurance against the said ATM card is not covered under the policy as the various claims are for Rs.2lac, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/-,as per the policy for Platinum cards, Classic/Maestro DMaestro Debit Card.Kisan Debit Card including Rupay card etc.(Ex.OP1). Since husband of the complainant had never used the ATM card for a long period of seven years, as such he was not entitled for any compensation. Moreover, the policy placed on record by OPs against which claim has been demanded was valid upto 31.3.2014 only. The complainant has failed to place on record either the ATM card or the policy against which card holder was covered in case of death due to accident. As such complainant failed to prove his case.
12. In view of aforesaid discussion, complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.  
13.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.

PRONOUNCED

DATED:17.2.2023

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President