Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/18/342

NARMADA JHABUA GRAMIN BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJENDRA PATIDAR - Opp.Party(s)

SH.V.K. SAXENA

20 Apr 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 342 OF 2018

(Arising out of order dated 21.08.2018 passed in C.C.No.689/2014 by District Commission, Indore-1)

 

BRANCH MANAGER, NARMADA JHABUA

GRAMIN BANK, BRANCH-MAIN STREET,

NEAR DREAMLAND CHOURAHA, MHOW

DISTRICT-INDORE (M.P.)                                                                                 ….           APPELLANT.

 

                       Versus

 

1. RAJENDRA PATIDAR (DECEASED),

    THROUGH NOMINEE RAHUL

    S/O LATE SHRI RAJENDRA PATIDAR,

    R/O RAJPURA KUTI, NEAR JANAPAV,

    MHOW DISTRICT-INDORE (M.P.)

 

2. DIRECTORS, BAJAJ ALLAINZ LIFE INSURANCE LTD.

    202-203, SECOND FLOOR, SHAGUN ARCADE,

    NEAR U TURN, VIJAY NAGAR CHOURAHA,

    INDORE (M.P.)                                                                                              

                    

3. DIRECTORS, BAJAJ ALLAINZ LIFE INSURANCE LTD.

    REGISTERED OFFICE-BAJAJ ALLAINZ HOUSE,

    OPPOSITE GUNJAN, AIRPORT ROAD, YERWADA,

    PUNE (MAHARASHTRA)                                                                             ….           RESPONDENTS.                                

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY                               :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri V. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Suresh Indorekar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

           Ms. Sangeeta Moharir, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 & 3.

 

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 20.04.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the opposite party/appellant-Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘bank’) is directed against the order

-2-

dated 21.08.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore-1 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.689/2014, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant’s father Late Shri Rajendra Patidar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased-insured’) was insured under the Master Policy which was taken by the bank and was issued on 21.12.2010, by the opposite party no.2&3-Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company’).  For the year 2010 & 2011, total annual premium of a sum of Rs.9,600/- was received by the insurance company through bank via ECS from the savings bank account no.043410110000168. For the year 2012, the deceased-insured deposited Rs.4,800/- in his savings bank account on 08.12.2012. Despite that the opposite parties interrupted the ECS pattern by showing wrong account no. 43410110000016. Deceased-insured died on 23.08.2013. The claim along with requisite documents was filed with the insurance company but the insurance company did not pay the claim amount. The premium for the year 2012 was not paid despite having proper balance, due to mistake of the opposite parties since wrong account number was mentioned by them. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of

 

-3-

opposite parties i.e. the insurance company and the bank, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party no.2/appellant-bank in its reply before the District Commission submitted that responsibility regarding payment

of insurance claim lies with the insurance company and the bank is nowhere liable in the instant matter. The complaint against the bank is not maintainable. The complainant has unnecessarily impleaded the bank as party to the case. The insurance company did not decide the claim for want of documents. The annual premium with regard to policy of the deceased-insured was to be paid by the month of December every year. From the bank details, it is clear that the last premium of Rs.4,800/- was deposited on 08.12.2011. Thereafter, the complainant did not instruct the bank to deduct the premium. It was therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The opposite party no.2 & 3 were proceeded ex-parte by the District Commission.

5.                Heard. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant-bank argued that the insurance company demanded the premium for the year 2012 by showing wrong account no. of the deceased-insured and hence the amount was not transferred through ECS for want of sufficient balance in the said account. Due to negligence of the insurance company, premium was not paid.

-4-

Therefore, for the negligent act of the insurance company, the bank cannot be held liable in the instant matter. Even, if it is assumed that there was contributory negligence of both i.e. the bank and the insurance company, the District Commission has committed grave error in affixing the liability only on the bank. There is no evidence on record to show that deceased-insured had given any instructions to the bank for deducting and sending the premium for renewal of the policy for the year 2012. Whenever the deceased-insured gave instructions, the premium was sent to the insurance company. Since in the year 2012, there were no instructions on behalf of deceased-insured, there was no question of sending the premium to the insurance company. The District Commission without considering the aforesaid aspect erroneously allowed the complaint against the bank only. He argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

7.                Learned counsel for the insurance company argued that since the bank did not send the requisite premium for the year 2012, the claim of the deceased-insured was not paid for want of premium and while doing so there has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company. The District Commission has rightly held the bank deficient in service in not sending the premium to the insurance company.

8.                The grievance of the complainant is that the insurance company issued the policy on 21.12.2010 of which annual premium for the year 2010

-5-

and 2011 was deducted by the bank from his savings bank account and forwarded to the insurance company through ECS. However, in the year 2012, despite there being sufficient balance in the account of the deceased-

insured, the premium was not deducted and was not sent to the insurance company.

9.                The bank admitted that every year in the month of December, premium for the insurance policy of the deceased-insured was regularly forwarded to the insurance company and thereafter the deceased-insured did not give any instructions for forwarding the premium for the year 2012. Therefore, the premium was not forwarded to the insurance company.

10.              In the year 2012, despite there being sufficient balance in the account of the deceased-insured, the premium was not forwarded to the insurance company. Meanwhile on 23.08.2013, the deceased-insured died. Thereafter, the bank forwarded the premium on 04.01.2014. There is nothing on record which could show that the bank had deducted premium for the year prior to 2012, upon instructions from the deceased-insured and could not deduct premium for the year 2012, due to lack of instructions from him. Also, in such circumstances, the reason for deduction of premium amount after the death of the deceased-insured remains unexplained.

11.              The District Commission has rightly held the bank liable for not forwarding the premium to the insurance company despite there being

-6-

sufficient balance in the account of the deceased-insured. Since the premium was deducted through ECS, it was the duty of the bank to deduct and forward the premium regularly to the insurance company. The bank has not been able to prove that it was done after receiving the instructions from the deceased-insured. The District Commission has also rightly held that since the insurance company did not receive the premium, the insurance company is not liable in the instant matter.  Since no deficiency in service was established against the insurance company, the District Commission has rightly exonerated the insurance company.

12.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission.

13.              As a result, the appeal, being devoid of merits is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 

 

  (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (DR. SRIKANT PANDEY) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                         PRESIDENT                            MEMBER                          MEMBER