STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No.    180 of 2020

Date of Institution:  04.03.2020

Date of Decision:   04.12.2020

1.      Punjab National Bank, Branch Cinema Road, Mahendergarh, Tehsil & District Mahendergarh, Haryana through its Manager.

2.      Punjab National Bank, Branch Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, Haryana through its Manager.

Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Sarita Devi wd/o Shri Santosh Kumar son of Shri Lakhmi Chand, resident of Village Bhurjat, Tehsil & District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

Present:     Shri Amit Rishi, counsel for the appellants.

O R D E R

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned for the reasons as specified in the miscellaneous application.

2.      Opposite party No.1-Punjab National Bank, Branch Cinema Road, Mahendergarh through its Manager and opposite party No.2-Punjab National Bank, Branch Narnaul through its Manager are in appeal against the order dated 23.01.2020 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahendergarh at Narnaul, whereby complaint preferred by complainant Sarita Devi under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was partly allowed by directing the opposite parties firstly to pay the insurance amount of   Rs.1 lakh to the complainant being widow on account of accidental death of Santosh Kumar and Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation as well as litigation expenses but giving liberty to the opposite parties to recover insurance amount of Rs.1 lakh along with interest paid from The New India Assurance Company Limited as per their MOU or master policy.

3.      According to the complainant, her husband Santosh Kumar had a savings account with Punjab National Bank, Mahendergarh Branch besides using the facility of ATM card issued by the opposite parties. The husband of the complainant was operating the account and using his ATM card regularly. Unfortunately, on 26.02.2018, the husband of the complainant expired due to accidental death (electrocution). As per terms and conditions of the policy in question, in case of accidental death/permanent disability and the person having active ATM card dying unnaturally (accidental death), the nominee/dependent was entitled to claim Rs.1,00,000/- provided the accident happened on or after 01.04.2017 and upto 31.03.2018 besides the card holder having performed minimum one successful financial or non-financial transaction at any channel within 45 days prior to the date of accident including accident date for premium card holders and within 90 days prior to date of accident including accident date for non-premium card holders. As such, the complainant deserved to get insurance claim of Rs.1,00,000/- being legally wedded wife of deceased Santosh Kumar, who was having active PNB Debit Card and regular customer of the opposite parties and expired on 26.02.2018 during the currency of the said insurance policy. After the death of her husband but within a month thereafter the complainant approached the opposite parties and filed representation on 05.04.2018, with which she submitted the requisite documents and requested to pay the claim amount. Initially, the matter was put off on one pretext or the other, however, lateron the opposite parties refused to pay the same which constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Legal notice was also given but despite the same no action was taken by the opposite parties. Rather the claim was refused through reply of legal notice. Lastly, she prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest on account of accidental death of her husband and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

4.      Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written version. Though some preliminary objections were taken yet it was submitted that the husband of the complainant was having a savings account with facility of ATM card. However, it was denied that deceased Santosh Kumar was using the ATM card. Rather the same might have been used by some other person, which was clearly proved from the statement of account of Santosh Kumar as the said ATM card was also used on 28.02.2018 i.e. after his death on 26.02.2018. It was admitted that an application dated 5.4.2018 was moved by one Sonu son of Santosh Kumar for getting the claim with regard to ATM card holder and along with his application, he only submitted death certificate of Santosh Kumar but neither any copy of FIR, copy of police report, copy of post-mortem report nor any claim was submitted by said Sonu to the opposite parties. After receiving the application and death certificate, the complainant and her son were asked to submit the documents within 150 days, which were not submitted and accordingly the claim could not be passed. Thus, there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, rather the fault lay with the complainant. Accordingly, prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      In support of her case, the complainant tendered her affidavit (Annexure CW1/A), affidavit of Sonu son of complainant (Annexure CW/B) and documents (Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-10). On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered in evidence the affidavit (Annexure RW/A) of P.P. Siroha, Senior Manager, PNB, Mahendergarh and documents (Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4).

6.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint, as mentioned above.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties has submitted that as the complainant failed to submit the requisite documents i.e. copy of FIR, copy of police report, copy of post-mortem report and original claim form within the stipulated period of time, the fault lay with the complainant herself due to which the claim amount could not be paid. Further, Santosh Kumar never made any transaction through ATM card of the opposite parties rather some other person was using the ATM card as some amount had been withdrawn by some other person on 28.02.2018 i.e. after the death of account holder on 26.02.2018 by using ATM card. It is further argued that master insurance policy was issued by The New India Assurance Company Limited and if the complainant was entitled to get the claim then The New India Assurance Company Limited was liable to pay the same being insurer. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal be accepted, impugned order be set aside and the complaint be dismissed.

8.      After hearing learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties, it is made out that the opposite parties wrongly and illegally denied to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant being his legally wedded wife. The account statement as well as passbook contained the entries regarding the transactions made by the deceased by using the ATM card, who had been rather using the ATM card regularly for the last 2/3 years, therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased had not done any transaction through ATM card. Some amount was withdrawn on 28.02.2018 i.e. after the death of Santosh Kumar by using the ATM card but that would not be sufficient to hold that the deceased never used his ATM card earlier to that.

9.      As regards the plea of the opposite parties that the complainant did not supply the requisite documents within the prescribed period, no such application or any letter had been placed on the file by the opposite parties in this regard. According to the opposite parties, the documents were not submitted within stipulated period. That would lead us to infer that the documents were submitted by the complainant but not within the prescribed period.

10.    According to the appellants, the FIR and the police papers were not submitted by the complainant. However, fact remains that no FIR had been registered at any point of time. As such the question of copy of FIR not been supplied to the opposite parties does not arise. At the same time, copy of post-mortem report showing cause of death and death certificate issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths and application moved to the Police are on the record, which makes it clear that all the necessary documents had been submitted by the complainant to the bank.

11.    As per the letter of policy (Annexure C-10), there is no requirement of submitting the copy of FIR to the opposite parties. The opposite parties thus failed to prove as to what steps were taken after receiving the claim intimation through letter from the complainant.

12.    In view of the above, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum vide which the complaint was partly allowed, as mentioned above.

13.    Resultantly, the appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed.

14.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants while filing the appeal be disbursed in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification subject to appeal/revision, if any, but in accordance with law.

  D.R.