IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 217/08 DATED 13-11-2008<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Renukadevi, W/o late S. Virupaksha, R/at No.1341, 1st Floor, 4th cross, Krishnamurthypuram, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri. , Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. The Manager, S.B.I. Cards & Payments, Services Ltd, Regd. Office at S.B.I. Local Head Office, 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi.<br /> 2. The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., D.O. No. IX 694, Kailash Building, 26, K.S. Marg, New Delhi.<br /> 3. Divisional Manager, D.O.1, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Prince of Wales Road, Ballal Circle, Mysore,<br /> (By Sri. ., Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 21-07-2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 29-7-2008<br /> Date of order : 13-11-2008 <br /> Duration of Proceeding : 3 months 14days<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has come up with this complaint against the opposite party with her grievance, that her husband late Virupaksha during his life time had a credit card issued by the first opposite party which had twin benefits with insurance plan that is personal accident plan and credit shield. Confirming the same, the first opposite party issued a letter on 28.01.2006. The second opposite party issued a master policy in favour of her husband. That her husband died in a rail accident on 14.07.2006 leaving her as his nominee. She made a claim for insurance benefits with opposite party No.3, at that time opposite party No.2 issued a letter to her to clear the outstanding amount of the credit card immediately and to send a zero balance credit card statement. Than the first opposite party adviced that but unless the balance due on the credit card is paid she will not get the benefits of personal accident insurance. She then explained to the opposite party No.1 with reference to the letter issued by them on 28.2.2006 stating that the credit card had by her husband is having credit shield which covers the outstanding amount up to Rs.1,00,000/- in the event of death or permanent disability and she need not pay the amount due under the credit card. But the opposite party No.1 insisted upon paying the amount due under the credit card and therefore she had to pay Rs.36,197 to the first opposite party on 9.11.2006. It is further contended by her that opposite party No.3 has cleared the benefit of personal insurance policy in compliance with the order passed by this Forum on a complaint filed by her and thus has stated that the opposite party No.1 by misrepresenting her has collected Rs.36,197/- due under the credit card for which she was entitled to get exemption and therefore has prayed for a direction to opposite party No.1 to refund that amount to her.<br /> 2. Opposite party No.1 and 3 have filed their version through their advocate. Counsel for opposite party No.2 has filed a memo adopting the version filed by opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.1 in his version has narrated the procedure of issue of credit card, payment of money due under the credit card imposition of certain charges when the amount due under the credit card is not paid, minimum amount to be paid and rate of interest that will be levied and late payment etc., surprisingly have not touched the subject of credit shield benefit the complainant claimed in this complaint. This opposite party No.1 denying to have threatened the complainant for collection of the credit card amount has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite party No.2 and 3 in their version admitting the complaint filed by the complainant in CC.210/2007 and having complied the order of this Forum passed in the above C.C regarding payment of insurance amount have stated that the credit card was issued by the opposite party No.1 according to which the husband of the complainant had credit shield covering to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- in the event of death or total permanent disability, and stating that it is opposite party No.1 has to give the benefit of credit shield and they are not at fault have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint the complainant, one Rameshbabu and Sheel Rattansena for the first and third opposite parties have filed their affidavit evidence, second opposite party has not filed affidavit evidence. The complainant along with the complaint has filed Xerox copy of the death certificate of her husband copy of the letter issued by opposite party No.1 and 2, copy of the insurance certificate issued by the opposite party No.3 and copy of the legal notice she got issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not produced any documents. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 5. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the credit card issued in favour of late Virupaksha had credit shield facility and that opposite party No.1 has filed to extend that benefit and thereby indulged in unfair trade practice?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to? <br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The claims of the complaint that the opposite party No.1 had issued a credit card to her husband Virupaksha which had twin benefits insurance plans that is personal accident plan and credit shield is not denied by the first opponent. That her claim that her husband died in a rail accident on 14.7.2006 and she is the nominee to those benefits is also not disputed.<br /> <br /> 7. The complainant in her complaint and also in the affidavit evidence contended that the first opposite party issued a letter confirming the credit shield facility that the credit card had as per the terms and conditions of the policy has produced the copy of the certificate of insurance which reveal that the card holder had the benefit of credit shield to a maximum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the event of the death of the card holder or for permanent disability. Curiously the first opposite party has not at all denied the benefit claimed by the complainant under the terms and conditions of the policy, which is the credit shield to the extent of 1,00,000/- on the death of the card holder. The first opposite party without traversing that aspect has gone on narrating the procedure of issue of credit card and recovery of the credit amount. The third opposite party in its version and also in the affidavit evidence made a categorical statement that credit card was issued by opposite party No.1, which has extended credit shield facility to a card holder in the event of his death and therefore stated in the case on hand the deceased wife is entitled to have the credit shield benefit and it is opposite party No.1 has to act upon it and he has nothing to do with it.<br /> 8. It is on going through the terms and conditions of the policy and the credit card issued by opposite party No.1 in favour of the husband of the complainant also looking at the evidence adduced by the complainant, opposite party No.3 and the documents we have no reservation to say that the first opposite party is liable to extend credit shield benefit on the credit card held by the deceased in favour of the complainant. But the first opposite party it seems has denied that benefit to the complainant and instead stated had threatened the complainant to pay all the outstanding amount due under the credit card held by her husband to claim the personal accident insurance amount and in the event of not paying the outstanding amount under the card she loose insurance benefits. It is because of that the complainant appears to had paid Rs.36,197/- to the first opposite party as per the account extract, on 9.11.2006. These facts are not impeached by the fist opposite party. Thus the claim of the complainant made against opposite party No.1 stand un-rebutted. The first opponent being a banking institution which offered certain beneficial scheme to the consumers and not adhearing to them and exploiting the situation and then denying the benefits to the eligible consumers it results in their involvement in un-faired trade practice, which shall have to be deprecated. With this we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed the first opposite party is directed to repay Rs.37,197/-to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order with interest at 12% p.a. from 9.11.2006 till the date of payment<br /> 2. Opposite party No.1 shall also pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation in they having mislead the complainant and for her mental agony within 30 days from the date of this order failing which he shall pay interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. Opposite party No.1 shall also pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> 4. The complaint is dismissed against opposite party No.2 and 3.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to both the parties according to rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 13th November 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar. J)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />