Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/511

ANITA SEN - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

MS.SHRADHA VIDHYARTHI

09 Apr 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL  

 

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 08.02.2019 passed in C.C.No.06/2018 by District Forum, Sehore)

 

ANITA SEN & ORS                                                                                            …          APPELLANTS

 

Versus

                 

BRANCH MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

AND ANOTHER .                                                                                                …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR.  MRS MONIKA MALIK                           :      MEMBER                                  

 

                                      O R D E R

09.04.2019

 

          Ms. Shradha Viyarthi, learned counsel for the appellant.

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

            Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sehore (For short ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.06/2018 whereby the appellant’s /complainant’s complaint has been dismissed, the complainant has filed this appeal.

2.                     Briefly stated the complainant had filed a complaint alleging therein that respondent no.1 Punjab National Bank has committed deficiency in service in not depositing the instalment of premium amount for the insurance policy of respondent no.2 LIC taken by Man Singh, her late husband under the Prime Minister Jeewan Jyoti Insurance Scheme.

3.                     Undisputedly the first premium was deducted and deposited by the bank on 10.08.2016.  The next premium was due ton 01.06.2017.  The policy holder Man Singh died on 03.07.2017.  There was no amount in the account of the policy holder on the due date. On 16.06.2017 Rs.500 were deposited in the said account by the complainants. There were dues in the account towards minimum balance to be required to be maintained in the bank.  In the result, the amount of Rs.500/- was adjusted by the respondent bank towards minimum deposit amount required to be maintained to keep the account alive.  After such adjustment as no amount left to pay for the premium instalment of the insurance, the premium was not deposited for want of sufficient fund in the account.

4.                     Learned counsel for appellant submits that even in the absence of there being minimum amount available in the account, it was incumbent upon the bank to have remitted the premium for insurance without first adjusting towards minimum balance, has no basis. 

-2-

The bank is entitled to keep the minimum amount for continuing the account and keeping it alive and the deposit of Rs.500/- if firstly adjusted for keeping the minimum balance and the instalment of premium was not deposited for want of sufficient balance in the account, no case for deficiency in service on the part of the bank can be said to be made out.   

5.                     Keeping the view the aforesaid in our considered opinion, the view taken by the District Forum is proper.  The appeal deserves and is hereby dismissed. 

 

              (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)           (Dr. Monika Malik)             

                            President                                      Member