Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER
The instant case filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 emanates from the grievances of the complainants arising out of the deduction of excess premium from their joint bank account maintained with State Bank of India, Sheoraphuli Branch, against a Personal Accident Insurance Policy opened with SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP 1).
Filtering out the unnecessary and somewhat irrelevant details in the complaint, the complainants’ case may be summarized as follows.
The Complainants, Sri Pratap Laha and Smt. Ratna Laha who are husband and wife by relation and who had a joint S/B Account in the Sheoraphuli Branch of State Bank of India opened two separate personal Accident Insurance Policies having sum insured of Rs.2,00,000/- each, with SBI General Insurance Company Limited. The premium payable against each policy was Rs.100/-
However the complainants agitate over the issue that premium was deducted at the rate of Rs.200/- instead of Rs.100/- by the bank and in spite of repeated intimations and requests, the bank did not bother about rectifying the same.
Considering the same as deficiency in service the complainants filed the complaint petition seeking direction upon the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation, another Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The opposite parties belonging to the same organization contested the case by filing elaborate rebuttals in their written version and brief notes of argument denying therein most of the allegations leveled against them. However the OP 1 prayed for treating the written version as evidence on affidavit.
In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records, it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 are concerned.
One of the opposite parties, at the time of institution of the complaint had a branch office within the district of Hooghly. The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/- Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Materials on records are perused. At the very outset, it will be worth mentioning that in the complaint petition opposite party number 2 is shown as ‘The S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. State Bank of India General Manager, Sheoraphuli Branch, Sheoraphuli, Hooghly Pin:- 712223’.
Here this should be pointed out that State bank of India and SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. are two different entities and thus these two organizations cannot simultaneously be shown as a single opposite party. Secondly, in normal practice in a particular branch of State Bank of India there is no such post under the title ‘General Manager’.
However from circumstantial aspects, it transpires that the policies were made with SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. with the arrangement that the premium would be deducted from the S/B A/C maintained by the complainants with the Sheoraphuli Branch of State Bank of India.
However the petitioners have submitted neither the copies of the policies and annexure if any nor the communications made to the bank on different dates as claimed by the petitioner.
Even on thorough examination of the complainant petition, certain issues related to the petition cannot be clarified.
- Whether the policy was in force on the date of filing the complainant petition. The petitioners on the other hand appear to have filed an application before the OP1 for ‘cancellation’ of the policies on 20.06.2019.
- It is nowhere mentioned that during which span of time or for how many times excess deductions of premium was made by the concerned authorities from the bank A/C of the complainant.
- The quantum of excess deduction also has not been specified in the petition.
Thus the petition itself suffers from lack of transparency.
The OP 1 in their submission has confessed that double premium was deducted inadvertently from the petitioner’s account but here also the number of times and the extent to which these irregular deductions were made are not spelt out. However the OP1 in the written notes of argument has expressed their willingness to make the appropriate refund to the complainants.
Even if this excess deduction of premium is treated as an inadvertent error, deficiency of service on the OP 1’s part cannot be brushed aside. However, for this deficiency in service, question of considering the astronomical claim for compensation, as preferred by the complainant does not arise. But after considering the facts and circumstances of the case this District Commission is of view that there was negligence on the bank’s part and the complainants are not liable to incur any financial loss for that.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case no.184/2019 is allowed on contest but in part. The opposite parties will be jointly liable to pay back the premiums deducted in excess with interest at the rate prevailing in SBI on normal term deposit on the date of such deductions, for the period from the date of deductions to the actual date of refund. However there is no order as to costs. Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
