Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/841/2019

Neelam Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/841/2019
Date of Institution	:	19/08/2019
Date of Decision	:	21.11.2022

 

Neelam Arora Wife of late Joginder Pal resident of House No 1159, First floor, Sector 19, District Panchkula (Haryana).

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   Punjab National Bank through its Manager SCF No.26-28, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh.

2.   PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited through Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory, SCO 68-69, 2^nd and 3^rd floor, Sector 17B, Chandigarh.

2^nd Address:

Registered office at Brigade Seshmahal 5, Vani  Vilas Road, Basavangudi, Bangalore-560004.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER Member

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, counsel for complainant.
	:	Sh. Abhineet Taneja, Counsel for OP No.1 Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, counel for OP no.2

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1. Briefly stated the husband of the complainant late Sh. Joginder Pal(Now deceased) opened bank account with  OP No.1  on 14.3.2007.  The case of the complainant is that on the persistence and assurance of the OP No.1 the husband of the complainant got a life insurance policy issued worth Rs.3.00  from OP No.2 according to which in event of death of the husband of the complainant any time in future the family  of the deceased  would be entitled to a total sum of Rs.3.00 lacs.  As such premium of Rs.696/- was debited from the account of the husband of the complainant in favour of OP No.2. It is pleaded that unfortunately on 21.12.2012 the husband of the complainant died due to fever leaving behind  his family which includes two children dependent on the husband of the complainant for the livelihood. In the year 2018 the complainant came to know  from the passbook of his deceased husband that Rs.696/- were debited from his account towards PNB Metlife Insurance for 3 lacs.  The OP No.1 also admitted debit of the amount aforesaid and  credit of the same in the account of OP No.3 and OP No1 intimated the complainant to pursue the matter with OP No.2.  Thereafter the complainant vide letter Annexure C-6 and through various subsequent correspondence requested OP No.2 to give clarification regarding the policy in question but nothing concrete was done by the OPs except the  amount in question was transferred in the account of the complainant by the OP No.2.  Ultimately legal notice Annexure C-8 was sent to the OPs but to no avail.  Hence, alleging the aforesaid act of the OPs deficiency in service, this complaint has been filed by the complainant. 
2.     In its written statement the OP No.1 while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the husband of the complainant was account holder of the answering OP and the bank on his instructions debited an amount of Rs.696/- from his account upon his instructions and credited the same into the account of the insurance company. Neither the answering OP has received any consideration nor the same was ever promised to be paid. It is asserted that the OP Bank has no role to play in the working of OP No.2 which is entirely a separate entity and as such the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP. Denying all other allegations leveled in the complaint it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3.  In its written statement OP No.2 has denied issuance of any life insurance policy to the husband of the complainant. It is averred that as per record of OP No.3 no policy was ever issued against the amount of Rs.696/- in favour of late Joginder Pal husband of the complainant. It is averred that the said amount might have wrongly transferred by OP No.1 on 17.3.2007 and due to the same the said amount was kept in suspense account. Moreover the answering insurance company has no policy that can be issued for Rs.696/- having sum assured of Rs.3.00 lacs for life time.  It is further averred that in the year 2019 the complainant approached the answering OP for reason of deduction of the amount in question from the account of her husband, the answering OP asked the complainant to submit the proof of deduction of Rs.696/- and after submission of proof, the answering OP immediately refunded the said amount of Rs.696/- in the same account and as such nothing is due against the complainant.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     Admittedly, an amount of Rs.696/- was debited from the account of the complainant, which is fairly apparent from Annexure C-3. The said amount was  debited by OP No.1 from the account of the husband of the complainant and undisputedly the said amount was credited in the account of OP NO. 2 (MET Life Ac/ No. 2273002100007518) on 17.3.2007 towards PNB Life Premium as is evident from Annexure C-4. It is also not disputed that the husband of the complainant was died on 21.12.2012 which is apparent from Annexure C-1 the death certificate.    When the aforesaid deductions came to the notice of the complainant she took the matter with OPs No.1&2, the OP No.2  refunded the amount in question  in the year 2019 taking the plea that the amount was  wrongly transferred by OP No.1 in the account of  OP No.2.
8. After thorough examination of the case we are not very much convinced with the version of Ops as we fail to understand as to why the said money was transferred by the OP No.1 to account of the OP No.2 without any express authority of the husband of the complainant. We also fail to understand as to why this amount was retained by the OP No.2 for a period of around 12 years illegally. Even if this money was transferred by OP No.1 to the OP No.2 inadvertently, then retaining this amount for around 12 years illegally by OP No.2 amounts to unfair trade practice. The OP No.1 has also indulged in unfair trade practice by transferring the said amount without any authorization from the complainant to the OP No.2 in the name of life insurance. Due to this deficient act of the OPs the complainant has to undergo a lot of harassment and mental agony. Hence, OPs are found to be deficient in providing service to the complainant and also indulged in unfair trade practice. Therefore, they are liable to compensate the complainant for the harassment undergone by her due to  deficiency on the part of the OPs.
9.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are jointly and severally directed as under :-

1. to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/-to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10.     This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
mp
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member