Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/286/2020

Nakumbla W/o Lt Sh Pankaj Sethi - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB - Opp.Party(s)

Anand Garg

14 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISISON, KURUKSHETRA

 

Complaint No.286 of 2020

Date of institution: 25.08.2020

                                      Date of decision: 14.08.2024

 

1.     Nakumbla wife of Late Shri Pankaj Sethi,

2.     Bhavya (minor) daughter of Shri Pankaj Sethi through her    mother Nakumbla.

3.     Bhavishya (minor) daughter of Shri Pankaj Sethi through her        mother Nakumbla all residents of 487/22, Rajinder Colony,      Thanesar,  Kurukshetra.

                                                                …Complainants.

Versus

 

1.     Punjab National Bank, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Thanesar through its Branch Manager.

2.     The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager Kurukshetra.

 

…Opposite parties

 

•  

NEELAM, MEMBER.

RAMESH KUMAR, MEMBER.

 

•  

Shri Lovkesh Machhal, Advocate for OP No.1.

Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for OP No.2.

           

• :     

                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.             Briefly stated, it is the case of the complainant that complainant is the legally wedded wife of deceased Pankaj Sethi who died on 29.06.2019 in an accident occurred on 31.05.2019 at Raj Pahwa Fire Godown, Narkatari Road, Kurukshetra. It is further averred that the deceased had a Savings bank account in his name with Punjab National Bank/OP No.1 having account number 0873000100249998 and also possessed a 'RuPay Debit Card' of the said account. The OP No.2 is the Personal Accident Insurance provider for RuPay cardholders of OP No. 1. It is further averred that on the day of accident i.e. 31.05.2019, the deceased went to Raj Pahwa Fire Godown and was possessing his RuPay Debit card of his above-mentioned savings bank account held with the OP No. 1. Due to the accident that occurred at Raj Pahwa Fire Godown, the deceased received severe burn injuries and due to which he was taken to PGI, Chandigarh where he died on 11.06.2019. It is submitted that the said card of the deceased got damaged in such accident. FIR no. 470 dated 31.05.2019, u/s 3,4,5 of Explosive Substances Act and u/s 337,338,427 IPC got registered with P.S. Thanesar City, Kurukshetra regarding such accident. It is further averred that due to such accident, the family of deceased was in complete shock as deceased was the sole bread earner for his family and now, they have no one to look after them. In the meanwhile, the complainant came to know from some external sources about a scheme with OP No. 1 namely, 'RuPay Insurance Programme - For the family of PNB RuPay Debit Card Users, in case of their Accidental Death/Permanent Disability'. Under this scheme, NPCI has introduced Insurance cover in case of accidental death or permanent disablement of Rs.1 lac for RuPay ATM card holders. It is submitted that OP No. 2 is the insurance provider under the above-mentioned RuPay Insurance programme. Such RuPay Insurance programme contains 'interalia', the following eligibility:

Benefit of Insurance will be available to the card holders who have performed Minimum one successful financial or non-financial transaction* at any channel (ATM/Micro ATM/POS/e-Com/BC of the bank at locations) Within 45 days prior to date of accident including accident date for Premium Cardholders; and - Within 90 days prior to date of accident including accident date for Non Premium Cardholders.  It is further averred that the Complainant when came to know about the above scheme, immediately went to OP No. 1 in order to claim the said insurance as the deceased had made several ATM transactions on 16.05.2019, 17.05.2019, 18.05.2019 and 23.05.2019 with online transaction from his RuPay Debit card of his above-mentioned savings account maintained with OP No. 1. It is pertinent to mention that such last transaction was done 24 days prior to his death on 11.06.2019. This means that the deceased very much falls within the eligibility criteria as specified in the above RuPay Insurance programme of OP No. 1 in order to claim insurance amount. It is further averred that when the complainant approached OP No. 1 to claim the insurance amount owing to the ATM transaction by the deceased from his RuPay card, OP No.1 did not pay any heed to her claim. Also, she was made to visit OP No. 1 many times as OP No. 1 kept on lingering her claim and made her visit to the branch again and again on one pretext or another. The complainant was not even provided the claim form by OP No. 1 despite her numerous requests. She was made to run from pillar to post just to get her legal and valid insurance amount but all went in vain. OP No. 1 was never bothered to listen to the genuine claim of the Complainant and rather kept on ignoring her. Hence, this present complaint.

3.              On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts contended inter-alia that the as per banking guidelines, information regarding the death of PNB ATM Card holders should be given to base bank branch within 150 days by the family members/beneficiary of the deceased.  Beneficiary of the complaint did not supply the information within stipulated period.

4.              The Op No.2 in its written statement stating that after receiving the intimation from complainant regarding claim a claim No.142300/42/20/01/9000154 in the name of Pankaj Kumar Sethi was generated and for setting the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy, request was made to provide “System Generated A/C statement of card holder 90 days prior to date of accident; Annexure D; Nominee Pan Card.  But till date requisitioned documents have not been provided by the claimant. No final decision on the claim of the complainant has been taken as per terms and conditions of the policy and present complaint deserves dismissal being premature.

5.              Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence on 19.04.2022 by suffering separate statement.

        6.             Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R-1/A and closed the evidence on 08.09.2023 by suffering separate statement, while learned counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex. R-1 and close the same on 08.11.2023.

7.              Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 08.11.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.              We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

8.              Shri Anand Garg, counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is the legally wedded wife of deceased Pankaj Sethi who died on 29.06.2019 in an accident occurred on 31.05.2019 at Raj Pahwa Fire Godown, Narkatari Road, Kurukshetra. It is further  argued that the deceased had a Savings bank account in his name with Punjab National Bank/OP No.1 having account number 0873000100249998 and also possessed a 'RuPay Debit Card' of the said account. The OP No.2 is the Personal Accident Insurance provider for RuPay cardholders of OP No. 1. It is further averred that on the day of accident i.e. 31.05.2019, the deceased went to Raj Pahwa Fire Godown and was possessing his RuPay Debit card of his above-mentioned savings bank account held with the OP No. 1. Due to the accident that occurred at Raj Pahwa Fire Godown, the deceased received severe burn injuries and due to which he was taken to PGI, Chandigarh where he died on 11.06.2019. It is also argued that the said card of the deceased got damaged in such accident. FIR no. 470 dated 31.05.2019, u/s 3,4,5 of Explosive Substances Act and u/s 337,338,427 IPC got registered with P.S. Thanesar City, Kurukshetra regarding such accident. It is further averred that due to such accident, the family of deceased was in complete shock as deceased was the sole bread earner for his family and now, they have no one to look after them. In the meanwhile, the complainant came to know from some external sources about a scheme with OP No. 1 namely, 'RuPay Insurance Programme - For the family of PNB RuPay Debit Card Users, in case of their Accidental Death/Permanent Disability'. Under this scheme, NPCI has introduced Insurance cover in case of accidental death or permanent disablement of Rs.1 lac for RuPay ATM card holders. It is submitted that OP No. 2 is the insurance provider under the above-mentioned RuPay Insurance programme. Such RuPay Insurance programme contains 'interalia', the following eligibility:

Benefit of Insurance will be available to the card holders who have performed Minimum one successful financial or non-financial transaction* at any channel (ATM/Micro ATM/POS/e-Com/BC of the bank at locations) Within 45 days prior to date of accident including accident date for Premium Cardholders; and - Within 90 days prior to date of accident including accident date for Non Premium Cardholders.  It is further averred that the Complainant when came to know about the above scheme, immediately went to OP No. 1 in order to claim the said insurance as the deceased had made several ATM transactions on 16.05.2019, 17.05.2019, 18.05.2019 and 23.05.2019 with online transaction from his RuPay Debit card of his above-mentioned savings account maintained with OP No. 1. It is pertinent to mention that such last transaction was done 24 days prior to his death on 11.06.2019. This means that the deceased very much falls within the eligibility criteria as specified in the above RuPay Insurance programme of OP No. 1 in order to claim insurance amount. It is further averred that when the complainant approached OP No. 1 to claim the insurance amount owing to the ATM transaction by the deceased from his RuPay card, OP No.1 did not pay any heed to her claim. Also, she was made to visit OP No. 1 many times as OP No. 1 kept on lingering her claim and made her visit to the branch again and again on one pretext or another. The complainant was not even provided the claim form by OP No. 1 despite her numerous requests. She was made to run from pillar to post just to get her legal and valid insurance amount but all went in vain. OP No. 1 was never bothered to listen to the genuine claim of the Complainant and rather kept on ignoring her.

9.              OPs No. 1 & 2 appeared through Shri Lovekesh Machhal and Shri Gaurav Gupta  respectively.  Shri Gaurav Gupta, counsel for the Op No.2 has argued that relevant documents pertaining to the reimbursement of Insurance amount has not been provided by the complainant to the OP No.2. 

10.            Rebutting his arguments, counsel for the complainant has argued that already these documents have been given by the complainant to the Ops, but only to harass the complainant, such excuse has been taken by the OP No.1.  However, complainant is agreeable to provide the requisite documents to the OPs within 10 days. 

11.            In view of the aforesaid discussions, complainant is directed to requisite documents to the OPs within 10 days from today and OPs shall gave the amount of Insurance as per the terms and conditions of Insurance Company within 45 days from today.   

12.             In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

                Announced in open Commission:

                Dated: 14.08.2024

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)            

                                                                 President,

                                                                 DCDRC, Kurukshetra.

 

                (Neelam)                (Ramesh Kumar)

                Member.                 Member.