Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/206/2019

Sunaina Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB - Opp.Party(s)

R.P.Chauhan

19 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                     Complaint Case No.206 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution:27.05.2019

                                                     Date of decision: 19.08.2021.

 

Sunaina Devi wife of Shri Rockey Chaudhary and d/o Shri Ram Nath resident of house no.8, Village Basti Gangauri, Sub Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, now residing at house no.1535, Sector -4, Kurukshetra. 136118.

                                                                        …….…Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Pipli Branch, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

2.The PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Limited, Sector 12, 2^nd Floor, Karnal.

3.The PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Limited Unit No.701, 702, 702, 7^th Floor,West Wing, Raheja Tower 26/27, MG Road, Banglore 560001.

……….Opposite parties.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Shri R.P.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.Lovekesh Machhal Advocate for OP No.1.

                OP No.2 and 3 ex parte.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Smt. Sunaina against Punjab National Bank and others, the opposite parties.

 

2.            In brief the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant was having saving bank account No.2949000100230592 with the  OP No.1. he complainant was having few FDRs with the OP no.1 out of which one FDR was matured on 15.9.2016 for Rs.4,02,826/-. That one of the officer of OPNo.1 misguided and misrepresented the complainant and advised that the return on the investment on the other products of the Bank of the said period will be more beneficial , then the investment on the FDR and on 20.9.2015, upon the renewal of the said FDR of Rs.4,02,826/- they issued one FDR for Rs.3,00,000/- and got the signatures of the complainant on blank transfer vouchers, FDR account opening form etc alongwith other printed papers and debited the bank account of the complainant for Rs.3.00 lacs on 20.9.2016 for the purpose of issuing FDR and subsequently on 21.09.2016 debited the account for Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of investment on another product of the bank without the knowledge of the complainant.  On 21.09.2017, Rs.48473/- was again debited by the OP from the said account of the complainant for MetLife premium and receipt of the same is received by the complainant in January 2019 with the subject written as premium paid certificate from 1.4.2017 to 31.3.2018. After the receipt of the letter dated 14.1.2019, the complainant visited the office of OP at Pipli for inquiring the matter, the OP No.1 told the complainant that the complainant has to pay Rs.50,000/- for ten years and the complainant is insured for Rs.5,10,000/-. It is stated that the complainant is not having enough income to pay such huge amount of premium for ten years regularly and requested the bank officials to return the amount back   but they repudiated the claim of the complainant by saying that all the  paid amount has gone into commission and other administrative expenses, even after service of legal notice and stated that the complainant will get nothing for the two installments of Rs.50,000/- each which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs has filed the present complaint and prayed that the OPs be  directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest and compensation for the mental agony and harassment caucused to her alongwith litigation expenses.

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement repudiating the claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that the complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands. The OP No.1 has no role in the present petition., The complainant has taken the policy as alleged in the present complaint from OP No.2 and 3 but unnecessarily without any cause or reason the complainant has  involved the answering OP no.1 in the present false litigation, hence the complaint of the complainant has no merit in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed with special costs qua the answering OP No.1.

 

4.             OP No.2 and 3 were duly served upon, but they failed to appear and contest the case. Therefore, the OP no.2 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.07.2019.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has placed on the file affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the OP no.1 has made a statement that the document Ex.C-2 available on the file be read as evidence  on behalf of the OP no.1.

 

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the case file.

 

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that the complainant was having saving bank account No.2949000100230592 with the OP No.1. She was having few FDRs with the OP no.1 out of which one FDR was matured on 15.9.2016 for Rs.4,02,826/-. That one of the officer of OP No.1 misguided and misrepresented the complainant and advised that the return on the investment on the other products of the Bank of the said period will be more beneficial , then the investment on the FDR and on 20.9.2015, upon the renewal of the said FDR of Rs.4,02,826/- they issued one FDR for Rs.3,00,000/- and got the signatures of the complainant on blank transfer vouchers, FDR account opening form etc alongwith other printed papers and debited the bank account of the complainant for Rs.3.00 lacs on 20.9.2016 for the purpose of issuing FDR and subsequently on 21.09.2016 debited the account for Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of investment on another product of the bank without the knowledge of the complainant.  On 21.09.2017, Rs.48473/- was again debited by the OP from the said account of the complainant for Met Life premium and on deduction of amount for the second time, the complainant sought information and she was supplied policy certificate Ex.C-1 and then only she came to know that she has been issued policy without her consent which is deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

9.             After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we see that from the perusal copy of pass book of the complainant it is  established  that on  21.09.2016  account of the complainant  was debited with an amount of  Rs.50,000/- for premium of the insurance policy.  It is also proved that again on  21.09.2017,  amount of Rs.48473/- was again debited by the OPs from the said account of the complainant for Met Life premium as established from the copy of pass book Ex.C-2. The  policy in question has been issued by OPs  without the consent of the complainant. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant is an old lady and she only came to know about the deduction of the amount which an amount of Rs.48473 was deducted from his account. Then she sought the information about the insurance policy and only on receipt of the policy certificate Ex.C-1 she came to know that his amount of Rs.50000/- was also deducted on 21.09.2016. Deduction of amount as mentioned above is  proved from the copy of pass book Ex.C-2. The policy in question was allegedly issued in the year 2016 and it was incumbent upon the OP No.2 and 3 to send the policy documents to the insured immediately but it was not done so and the policy certificate was only sent to the complainant on demand in the year 2019. Therefore, deficiency in services on the part of the OP no.2 and 3 is made out.

 

                Thus, from the above it is clear that the complainant never took any insurance policy as alleged by the Ops. The amount of Rs.98473/- has been wrongly deducted from the account of the complainant which is unfair trade practice and deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.2 and 3. The  OP no.2 and 3 have been proceeded against ex-parte and did not appear to contest the case, therefore, the version put forwarded by the  complainant  completely goes unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.50000/- and Rs.48473/- from the OPs  besides the compensation for the mental harassment  and agony caused to him and the litigation expenses. The complainant is having only  his bank account with the OP No.1 whereas the alleged policy was issued by OpNo.2 and 3, therefore, no deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.1 is made out and the complaint deserves to be dismissed against OP No.1.

 

10.           So, in view of our aforementioned findings, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No. 2 and 3 to refund the amount of Rs.98473/- ( i.e. Rs.50000/- + Rs.48473) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 27.5.2019 till its actual realization.  The OP No.2 and 3 shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to her and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.  The OP No. 2 and 3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OP2 and 3. The complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.: 19.08.2020.                                                  (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                 President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

         Member                      Member.