Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/436/2019

Mohinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Neetu Devi

01 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    436 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         27.09.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 01.06.2022

 

Mohinder Kaur w/o Shri Swaran Singh, r/o village Madudan, Post Office Naggla, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Kalsana, village Kalsani, Post Office Nagla, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Policy issuing office: Bandra Divisional Office 142300, C-6, NCL Business Premises, 1^st Floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051, through its Divisional Manager.

 

...Respondents.

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Ms. Neetu Devi, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Lovekesh Machhal, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that on 24.08.2015, son of complainant namely Jagdeepak Singh opened an account No.3283000100508707 with OP No.1 and got issued ATM (Rupay Card) No.6070930086180288 for withdrawing the amount for use. The said ATM was insured with No.2 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in case of death of holder of ATM. Her son was using the said ATM regularly and withdrawing the amount through it. On 27.02.2017, her son was died in a road side accident and intimation in this regard was given to the OPs in time and complainant being mother of deceased son Jagdeepak Singh, who was unmarried, is the Class-1 legal heirs of her son. She was dependent on the income of her son, who was doing business of decoration at Ismailabad. The complainant suffered unbearable blow due to untimely death of her son. She deposited the necessary documents/forms with the OP No.1 on 14.04.2017 for getting the claim of Rs.2 lacs regarding insurance of ATM of deceased son, but OPs had not paid the said amount to her. She issued legal notice dated 03.7.2019 through registered post upon the OPs, but nothing was done by the OPs in this regard, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, which exposed her to great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, constraining her to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their respective written statements.

4.                OP No.1 in its written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; time barred; no cause of action; jurisdiction and complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted that the complainant did not supply the required documents/information in time to OP No.1. When OP No.1 received the information regarding death of ATM card holder Jagdeepak Singh, then it immediately informed to the concerned insurance company and same was admitted by the insurance company in their written statement, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it with heavy costs.

5.                OP No.2 in its written statement stated that deceased Jagdeepak Singh nominated his nominee Shri Swaran Singh, who is son of deceased and complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, as National Payments Corporation of India i.e. NPCI has not arrayed as OP, so present complaint deserves dismissal on this score alone. The complainant never came before this Commission with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts from this Commission. In fact, the true and material facts are, the OP No.2 received the claim intimation regarding awareness of death of Swaran Singh from Punjab National Bank vide Bank Letter dated 17.03.2018 i.e. after more than one year of death of Swaran Singh. As per terms and conditions of Rupay Insurance Program policy 2016-2017 policy, Clause-3 under header “Procedure for Claim” of the policy issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. states that “Any claims reported after 90 days from the date of accident will not be fulfilled under the RuPay Insurance Program 2016-17”. As the claim was intimated after one year and as per terms and conditions, claim must be intimated with 90 days, constitutes gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy, so being not maintainable, claim of complainant was repudiated. Furthermore, deceased was not unmarried. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint with costs.  

6.                In support to support her case, complainant tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed her evidence.

7.                On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R6 and closed its evidence. OP No.1 failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, as such, its evidence was closed by the order of this Commission on 24.11.2021. OP No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 and closed its evidence.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

9.                At the outset, learned counsel for the OP No.2 has taken the objection that deceased Jagdeepak Singh nominated his nominee Shri Swaran Singh, who is son of deceased and complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint and this fact was also proved from Rupay Cardholder’s Personal Accident Insurance Claim Form Ex.C-4 as well as Declaration Form Ex.C-5. The said fact has also not been disputed by the complainant as well. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant produced an affidavit dated 01.06.2022 of said Swaran Singh (nominee of Jagdeepak Singh in the present case), wherein, he has given his No Objection if the complaint filed by complainant is accepted and the entire claim amount is awarded in favour of the complainant. So, in view of this affidavit of nominee Swaran Singh, the above-mentioned objection taken by OP No.2 has become infructuous, hence, rejected and as such, claim amount, if any, shall be paid to the complainant.    

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant argued that on 24.08.2015, son of complainant namely Jagdeepak Singh opened an account No.3283000100508707 with OP No.1 and got issued ATM (Rupay Card) No.6070930086180288 for withdrawing the amount for use. The said ATM was insured with No.2 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in case of death of holder of ATM. Son of complainant was using the said ATM regularly and withdrawing the amount through it. On 27.02.2017, her son was died in a road side accident and intimation in this regard was given to the OPs in time and complainant being mother of deceased son Jagdeepak Singh, who was unmarried, is the Class-1 legal heirs of her son. The complainant deposited the necessary documents/forms with the OP No.1 on 14.04.2017 for getting the claim of Rs.2 lacs regarding insurance of ATM of deceased son, but OPs had not paid the said amount to her. The complainant issued legal notice dated 03.7.2019 through registered post upon the OPs, but nothing was done by the OPs in this regard, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11.              The learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that the complainant did not supply the required documents/information in time to the OP No.1. When OP No.1 received the information regarding death of ATM card holder Jagdeepak Singh, then it immediately informed to the concerned insurance company and same was admitted by the insurance company in their written statement. He further argued that in Rupay Cardholder’s Personal Accident Insurance Claim Form Ex.C-4, where date is mentioned as 14.04.2017, but on that day, it was holiday at OP No.1 office and as and when the complainant submitted the claim intimation with OP No.1, immediately thereafter, the OP No.1 submitted the same with OP No.2, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it with heavy costs. To support his contentions, he placed reliance on case law titled Gurshinder Singh Versus Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No.653 of 2020 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.24370 of 2015) (SC).

12.              The learned counsel for OP No.2 argued that deceased Jagdeepak Singh nominated his nominee Shri Swaran Singh, who is son of deceased and complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, as National Payments Corporation of India i.e. NPCI has not arrayed as OP, so present complaint deserves dismissal on this score alone. The OP No.2 received the claim intimation regarding awareness of death of Swaran Singh from Punjab National Bank vide Bank Letter dated 17.03.2018 i.e. after more than one year of death of Jagdeepak Singh, constitutes gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy, so being not maintainable, claim of complainant was repudiated. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint with costs. 

13.               There is no dispute that on 24.08.2015, son of complainant namely Jagdeepak Singh opened a bank account bearing No.3283000100508707 with the OP No.1 bank, as is evident from Statement of Account Ex.C-9, and an ATM (RuPay Card) bearing No.6070930086180288 (Mark-A) for withdrawing the amount, had also been issued in this regard, by OP No.1 bank. The said ATM/Debit card was insured with National Payments Corporation of India (for short “NPCI”) through OP No.2 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, in case of death of holder of ATM Card i.e. Jagdeepak Singh, in the present case. Said Jagdeepak Singh was died on 27.02.2017, vide Death Certificate Ex.C-6 (Ex.R-1), as such, his death case was falling within the FY 2016-17.

14.              After death of Jagdeepak Singh, complainant approached to OP No.1, by submitting all the requisite documents/forms on 14.04.2017, for getting the death claim of Rs.2 lacs regarding insurance of his ATM with NPCI through OP No.2, but OP No.2 intimated vide email dated 28.08.2019 Ex.R3, to the effect that as per terms and conditions of Rupay Insurance Program Policy 2016-17, the claim intimation was required to be submitted before it, within a period of 90 days from the date of incident, but in the case in hand, the same was received by it, from OP No.1, on 17.03.2018 i.e. after the period of 90 days, from the date of incident on 27.02.2017, constitutes gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy, issued by NPCI and so claim was not maintainable, hence repudiated.

15.              In this regard, learned counsel for the OP No.2 drawn attention of this Commission towards letter dated 15.02.2018 Ex.R-5, which was written by NPCI, to it (OP No.2). After careful scrutiny of said letter Ex.R-5, it is evident that 1003 claims, out of total 1324, were fulfilled, whereas, 66 were not settled due to late intimation i.e. after the mandatory period of 90 days of the incident, violating the Clause-3 under head “Procedure for Claim” of the terms and conditions of the Rupay Insurance Program Policy 2016-2017. As per OP No.2, since the death claim intimation of Jagdeepak Singh received by OP No.2, from OP No.1, on 17.03.2018 i.e. after the mandatory period of 90 days from the date of incident, constituting gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, claim was not maintainable, hence the same was rightly repudiated on this very ground by NPCI and same was intimated to the complainant by it.

 

16.              From the above pleadings, we found that 66 claims, including claim of complainant’s son Jagdeepak Singh, has not been settled by NPCI, due to late intimation of the claim i.e. after the mandatory period of 90 days from the incident in question. Now this Commission has to decide that who is responsible for this delay, due to which, death claim of Jagdeepak Singh could not be settled and the same was repudiated by OP No.2.

17.              On this very point, learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant had lodged the death claim of his son with the OP No.1 well within the time, after the incident, and drawn attention of this Commission towards Rupay Cardholder’s Personal Accident Insurance Claim Form Ex.C-4. From the perusal of said Claim Form Ex.C-4, it is crystal clear that the complainant lodged/submitted the death insurance claim of his son Jagdeepak Singh, with OP No.1, on 14.04.2017 i.e. after about 46 days of the incident of 27.02.2017, and prior to mandatory period of 90 days, as per terms of Rupay Insurance Program policy 2016-2017. On the other hand, in this regard, learned counsel for OP No.2 drawn attention of this Commission towards letter dated 17.03.2018 Ex.R-2, sent by OP No.1, to OP No.2 and from perusal of said letter Ex.R-2, it is found that OP No.1 had lodged/given death insurance claim intimation against Rupay Debit Card of Jagdeepak Singh, to OP No.2, on 17.03.2018 i.e. after a period of more than one year, from the date of incident on 27.02.2017 as well as after mandatory period of 90 days, which is clear cut violation of terms and conditions of Rupay Insurance policy 2016-17, issued by NPCI. No doubt, in written statement as well as at the time of arguments, learned counsel for OP No.1 contended that as and when complainant submitted the death claim intimation of Jagdeepak Singh with OP No.1, immediately thereafter, the OP No.1 submitted the same with OP No.2 well within the mandatory period of 90 days, but OP No.1 failed to produce any documentary evidence, on the record in this regard to support his above version, and in the absence of that, above contention of OP No.1, cannot be believed. In this regard, contention of OP No.2 that OP No.2 received death insurance claim intimation of Jagdeepak Singh, from OP No.1, on 17.03.2018 i.e. after the mandatory period of 90 days from the date of incident, is believable, and as a consequence thereof, the NPCI, which is a Government of India undertaking, refused to settle the death claim of complainant’s son Jagdeepak Singh, due to violation of terms and conditions of the policy in question, and accordingly, the same was intimated to the complainant by OP No.2, vide email dated 28.08.2019 Ex.R3. In this way, we found that OP No.2 has no role to play in rejecting or accepting the death claim of complainant’s son Jagdeepak Singh, rather, the same was decided by the NPCI (Government of India undertaking), who had refused to settle 66 claims (including complainant’s son claim) due to violation of terms and conditions of Rupay Insurance policy 2016-17, issued by it and OP had only intimated the same to the complainant. So, in this way, we found no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 while repudiating the claim of the complainant. Since OP No.1 sent the death claim intimation of Jagdeepak Singh to OP No.2, after the mandatory period of 90 days, due to which, said claim could not settled by NPCI, therefore, it is an act of gross deficiency in service, on the part of the OP No1, being a Corporate Body.

18.              Needless to mention here that no doubt, Jagdeepak Singh was holding Rupay ATM/Debit Card and the same was insured with National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), through OP No.2, for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, in case of death of holder of said card i.e. Jagdeepak Singh, subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the policy in question. Both the parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question (which was not disputed by any of the party in the case in hand), as the same is a binding contract between them and none of the party can wriggle out from the contents of its term and condition. In this regard, view of this Commission is fully supported by the case law titled Bharathi Knitting Vs. D.H.L. Worldwide Express Courier, 1996 (4), SCC, 704 (SC). In the case in hand, it was the OP No.1 only, who violated the terms and conditions of the policy in question, by not sending the death claim intimation to the OP No.2 within the mandatory period of 90 days, due to which, claim of complainant’s son could not be settled by NPCI and the same was intimated by OP No.2 to the complainant via email dated 28.08.2019 Ex.R3. Assuming, if OP No.1 has had intimated the OP No.2 regarding death claim of Jagdeepak Singh, within the mandatory period of 90 days from the incident, as per terms and conditions of the policy in question, then the complainant would have been entitled to get the claim amount of Rs.2 lacs, from NPCI/OP No.2 as per policy in question, but it was not done so by OP No.1 in the case in hand, due to which, death claim amount of Rs.2 lacs could not be paid/released by NPCI/OP No.2 to the complainant, which is an act of gross deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Hence, the OP No.1, being deficient one, is liable to pay the death claim amount of Rs.2 lacs, to the complainant along with compensation and litigation expenses. Since, no deficiency in service is proved on behalf of OP No.2, therefore, complaint qua it, is liable to be dismissed. The case law, produced by OP No.1, is not disputed, but the same is not helpful to the case in hand, being rested on different footings.

 

19.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OP No.1 only, and dismiss the same against OP No.2, and direct OP No.1, to make the payment of death claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, to the complainant, alongwith interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to her, due to deficiency in services, on the part of the OP No.1, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OP No.1 is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act, against the OP No.1. 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:

Dated:01.06.2022.

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.