Haryana

Karnal

CC/249/2021

Smt. Punam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjan National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

13 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.249 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt. 13.05.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 13.12.2023

 

Smt.Punam aged 38 years, wife of late Shri Joginder son of Shri Kishan Lal, resident of Dera Purbia, Village Balla, District Karnal. Aadhar No.2085 6317 0056.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Punjab National Bank, through its Branch Manager, at Village Balla, District Karnal.             

…..Opposite party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh……….Member

          

 Argued by: Shri S.S.Moonak, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Deepak Sandhu, counsel for the OP

 

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, president)

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that husband of complainant Joginder was maintaining a saving bank account no.1245000100275599 with the OP and the said account was being operated regularly by the husband of the complainant. OP/bank issued a debit card, bearing no.6070 9362 0201 1216 (RUPAY) to the husband of complainant for withdrawing the money from time to time. A sum of Rs.330/- and Rs.12/- were deducted from the Saving Bank Account of Shri Joingder, by way of debit/entry for PMJJBY and PMSBY (Prime Minister Suraksha Bima Yojna) respectively. Unfortunately, the husband of complainant died in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 07.12.2020 and a case, vide FIR no.472 /2020 under section 279, 337 304-A IPC was registered with Police Station Matloda, Panipat in this regard. After the death of husband of complainant, the complainant approached the office of OP and submitted all the relevant documents as demanded by the officials of the OP for compensation of PMJJBY/PMSBY scheme and for ATM card compensation. Despite that, no compensation was granted to the complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.02.2021 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.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction cause of action; concealment of true and material facts, etc. On merits, it is admitted that the husband of complainant was having saving bank account with the OP and at the request of husband of complainant, the OP issued ATM to him. It is also submitted that the complainant neither approached the office of the OP nor submitted any documents to the OP for lodging her claim. The complainant is not eligible for any ATM compensation as per the policy/guidelines of the OP. 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.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, copy of bank passbook Ex.C2, copy of FIR Ex.C2, copy of PMR Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5 and copy of postal receipt Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 12.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Puneet Kumar, Branch Manager, Ex.OP1/A, copy of digital banking division circular Ex.OP1 and copy of statement of account Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 17.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that husband of the complainant was having a saving account with the OP and the OP also issued an ATM Card to him. The OP also deducted an amount of Rs.330/- and Rs.12/- from the account of husband of complainant for PMJJBY and PMSBY. As the husband of the complainant had died in a road side accident, therefore, the complainant is entitled for the compensation according to Prime Minister Suraksha Bima Yojna. The complainant is also entitled for compensation for ATM card but despite lodging the claim with the OP, they did not yield the genuine request of the complainant and refused to pay the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per-contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that no amount has been deducted from the account of the complainant for PMJJBY and PMSBY. Neither the complainant ever approached to the OP for her claim nor lodged any claim with them.  The complainant is also not entitled for ATM claim as the ATM which was issued to the husband of the complainant is having no compensation according to the guidelines of the bank and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

10.           Admittedly, the husband of the complainant was having a saving account with the OP and that the OP had issued an ATM card to him.

11.           The complainant has alleged that the OP had deducted an amount of Rs.330/- and Rs.12/- as premium of PMJJBY and PMSBY scheme.

12.           The onus to prove her case was relied upon the complainant but the complainant has miserably failed to prove by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence that an amount of Rs.330/- and Rs.12/- were ever deduced from the account of her husband for insurance under PMJJBY and PMSBY scheme. The complainant has only placed on record front page of passbook of saving account Ex.C1, copy of ATM Card Ex.C2, copy of FIR Ex.C3, copy of PMR Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5 and copy of postal receipt Ex.C6. From these documents, only it is proved that the husband of the complainant was having an account with the OP and he was died in a road side accident but the fact that the husband of the complainant was obtained any insurance under PMJJBY and PMSBY from the OP and the OP deducted the premium amount does not prove.

12.           Furthermore, in its evidence the OP has placed on record copy of account statement belonging to deceased Ex.OP2. From a bare perusal of the said account statement, it has been proved that an amount of Rs.330/- and Rs.12/- were never deducted from the account of the husband of complainant as premium of insurance under PMJJBY and PMSBY. Moreso, from the digital banking division circular No.16/2020 Ex.OP1, it has also been proved that the RUBAY Card which was issued to the husband of complainant does not cover any insurance.

11.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Dated:13.12.2023                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)    

                     Member                   Member