Haryana

Karnal

CC/17/2023

Gurmeet Kayr - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab & Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Kamboj

07 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.17 of 2023

                                                        Date of instt.09.01.2023

                                                        Date of Decision: 07.11.2024

 

1. Gurmeet Kaur age 76 years wife of Shri Surjeet Singh. Aadhar no.64 87 9786 6493.
2. Surjeet Singh age 75 years son of Shri Fauja Singh. Aadhar no.7811 0055 9674.
3. Indra Jeet Singh age 14 years minor son of late Shri Sulkhan Singh. Aadhar no.7367 3142 1594.
4. Kamalpreet age 7 years son of late Shri Sulakhan Singh. The minors are living under the care and custody of the complainants no.1 and 2 being their grandparents being the natural guardian and next friends who have got no adverse interest to that of minors.

All residents of Fish Farm Nasib Pura Saidpura, District Karnal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

Punjab & Sind Bank, village Saidpura, opposite CSSRI Pump Kachhawa Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Pardeep Kamboj, counsel for the complainants.

                    Shri S.S.Bhalla, counsel for the opposite party.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:

  

                    The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that the son of complainants no.1 and 2 and father of complainants no.3 and 4 namely Shri Sulakhan Singh is/was having a bank account no.13171000005162 with the OP . Shri Sulakhan Singh was operating the aforesaid bank account. Sulakhan Singh was married with Kulwinder Kaur and out of the said wedlock the complainants No.3 and 4 have been born out. Prior to the accident said Kulwinder Kaur wife of Sulkhan Singh and mother of the complainant no.3 an 4 had already died. The minor complainants no.3 and 4 are living with the complainants no.1 and 2 under their care and custody. The official of the OP has also issued Rupay Debit and prepared ATM card to Shri Sulakhan Singh. After obtaining the Rupay Debit and prepaid ATM card Sulakhan Singh was using the same for withdrawing the amount. As per the scheme of the OP at the time of issuing the Rupay Debit and prepaid ATM card holder is insured to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- and on account of death Rupay Debit and prepaid ATM Card holder the OP would also pay compensation to the family members of the deceased on every transaction. On 27.08.2022, Sulakhan Singh died in a roadside accident, leaving behind the complainants. In this regard FIR no.665 dated 28.08.2022 under section 279/337/338/304-A of IPC has been registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal.

 2.            It is further averred that as per the scheme of the OP Shri Sulakhan Singh was insured to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. After the death of Sulkahn Singh, the complainants are entitled to receive the insured amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-and compensation on every transaction through Rupay Debit and prepaid ATM as per the scheme of the OP. After the death of Sulakhan Singh, complainants visited the office of OP and moved an application requesting thereby to make the payment of aforesaid insurance amount and compensation of transaction. The complainants have completed all the formalities as required by the OP. On receipt of the documents, OP assured the complainants that they will certainly pass the insurance claim and would pay the compensation on every transaction as per the account statement but till date no insurance amount and compensation paid by the OP despite of repeated requests and visits of complainants. After the death of Sulakhan Singh, complainants have no source of income. Complainants were fully dependent upon the income of Sulakhan Singh. Due to non-payment of insurance amount and compensation, complainants have suffered great loss, mental pain, agony and harassment. Then complainants sent a legal notice dated 23.12.2022 to the OP but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

3.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that as complainants being legal heirs of deceased Sulakhan Singh, who was the Rupay Debit Card holder as per the scheme of National Payments Corporation of India as per Rupay Insurance Program. Said deceased while opened his S/B account with Punjab and Sind Bank, bearing no.13171000005162, was given said Rupay debit card to him. As per the said Rupay Debit Card Scheme, claimant can sought claim for said card holders and are only entitled to the claim after completing all the formalities of said card scheme and then can claim fixed amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Vide circular for the insurance of Rs.1,00,000/- (accidental death or permanent disablement only), the claimant’s claim can be subject to the Terms and Conditions are mentioned here in below:

1. All Rupay Card Holders (including all Variants and Jan Dhan i.e. PMJDY Cards) will be eligible for the benefits under the insurance program.
2. Benefits of insurance will be available only to the card holder who has performed minimum one successful financial or non-financial transaction at any channel both Intra and Intra bank (ATM/Micro TM/POS/e-com) 45 days prior to incident.
3. Rupay card holders will be eligible for the compensation on only 1 eligible Rupay Card per Card Holder or per customer, even if multiple cards of different bank are metting the  eligibility criteria. The choice of the card for the claim would rest with the customer.
4. Personal Accident Insurance in open to Rupay Card Holders from the age of 18 years to 70 years. It may be noted that the age below 18 and beyond 70 years shall not be eligible to avail the insurance scheme.
5. Compensation of insurance benefit will be made to the eligible beneficiary on the submission of complete documentation set prescribed under “Procedure of Claim.”
6. While filing insurance claim at the request of beneficiary member bank should ensure that applicant is a bonafide beneficiary as per the Law of the land.
7. Member Banks are responsible to communicate the Insurance Scheme, important Terms and Conditions and the process of claim intimation to the cardholders.
8. The Member Banks should be proactively communicate the benefit through websites, call centres, branches etc. and should include the information on insurance scheme and important Terms and Conditions in welcome kits in the form of leaflets and usage guide as per RBI approved font specifications.

4.             It is further pleaded that as per terms and conditions of the abovesaid circular, complainants are not entitled to any claim. Deceased had become failed to keep minimum one successful financial or non-financial transaction at any channel both Intra and Intra Bank (ATM/Micro ATM/POS/e-com) 45 days prior to incident. However, complainant no.1 of the deceased was already taken the claim under PMSBY Scheme of Rs.2,00,000/- on 12.12.2002 from the OP on account of the accidental death of said Sulakhan Singh on the basis of deceased said S.B. Account which is not in question. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainants has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant no.2 Surjeet Singh Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of death certificate Ex.C3, copy of post mortem report  Ex.C4, copy of FIR Ex.C5, copy of ATM card Ex.C6, copy of Bank passbook Ex.C7, copy of aadhar cards of complainants Ex.C8 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on 24.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jagdeep Singh Manager Ex.OPW1/A, copy of terms and conditions of PMSBY Ex.OP1, copy of Rupay Insurance Program Circular Ex.OP2, copy of statement of account of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur Ex.OP3, copy of statement of account of Shri Sulkhan Singh Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 21.05.2024 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that the son of complainants no.1 and 2 and father of complainants no.3 and 4 Shri Sulakhan Singh was maintaining a saving bank account with the OP Bank. The bank had also issued a Rupay Debit Card to Sulkhan Singh. On 27.08.2022, Sulkhan Singh died in a road side accident and a case vide FIR no.665 dated 28.08.2022 under section 279/337/338/304-A was registered in the concerned police station. As per the scheme of the OP Bank, an account holder, who has been issued Rupay Debit card is insured Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- in the event of his/her death and compensation on all the transaction made through Rupay card. After the death of insured Sulakhan Singh, complainants being legal heirs, approached the OP and claimed the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith all other benefits relating to debit card and also submitted all the necessary documents with the OP and requested the OP several times to pay the claim amount but OP did not pay  the same and  denied to pay the claim on the false and frivolous ground. He further argued that OP never supplied any terms and conditions of the insurance policy covered under the ATM Card in question to the complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that it is mandatorily requirement that debit card must be used one successful financial or non-financial transaction at any channel both Intra and Intra Bank within 45 days prior to incident but deceased has become failed to keep minimum one successful financial or non-financial transaction within stipulated period. He further argued that complainant no.1 has already taken the claim under PMSBY Scheme of Rs.2,00,000/- on 12.12.2002 from the OP on account of the accidental death, hence no claim is payable to the complainants and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

12.           Admittedly, Sulakhan Singh (since deceased) was maintaining a saving bank account with the OP Bank. It is also admitted that OP bank had issued a Rupay Debit Card to the complainant.. It is also admitted that Sulakhan Singh died in road side accident.

13.           OP has alleged that it is a mandatory condition for the cardholders to swipe the card within 45 days from the date of death of insured. The claim of the complainants has been denied by the OP on the ground that  deceased had not swiped the ATM card  within a stipulated period of 45 days prior to his death, hence no claim is payable to the legal heirs of deceased.  

14.           Now, question arises for consideration is that whether the abovesaid terms and conditions of the insurance policy were supplied to the insurer or not?

15.           The complainants have taken a plea that OP has never issued any insurance policy or its terms and condition or any document related to the insurance policy covered under the ATM card to the deceased. To rebut the said plea, OP has not placed on file any documentary evidence. It was the duty of the OP Bank to supply the terms and conditions to the account holder but neither the insurance policy nor the terms and conditions of usage of ATM card were supplied to the account holder by the bank. In this regard we relied upon the case law titled as Anju Kalsi Vs. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited and Another in Civil Appeal nos.1544-145 of 2022, decided on 21.02.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the account holders are the beneficiaries of the policy, but except the covering letter no further documentation/ terms and conditions of the insurance policy was furnished to the account holder. Thus, the deficiency of service, if any, would be on the part of the bank and there is no deficiency on the part of the insurer.

16.           Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP while denying the claim of complainants amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

17.           Complainants have alleged that they are entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- as per Rupay card holder Insurance Scheme but they failed to place on file any proof to ascertain that they are entitled for the alleged amount. Rather, OP has placed on file copy of Rupay Insurance Program Circular Ex.OP2 dated 10.10.2014. As per said circular, Rupay Card holder is entitled only Rs.1,00,000/- on accidental death. Hence, the complainants are entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

18.           As per the copy of aadhar card Ex.C10, date of birth of Indira Jeet Singh (complainant no.3) is 24.09.2008 and as per the copy of aadhar card Ex.C11, date of birth of Kamalpreet is 15.09.2015. Hence, both the complainants are minor.

19.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. one lakh only) sum insured to the complainants. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by them and Rs.11,000/- towards the litigation expenses to the complainants. Awarded amount be paid to the complainants in equal shares. However, the amount of the share of complainants no.3 and 4 shall be deposited in some Nationalized Bank in the shape of FDR till their attain the age of majority. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:07.11.2024                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Neeru Agarwal)              (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                        Member                             Member