Haryana

Kurukshetra

218/2017

Joginder Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

K.K.Aggarwal

28 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.218 of 2017.

Date of instt: 11.10.2017. 

                                                                        Date of Decision: 28.03.2019.

 

Joginder Ram son of Sh. Shan Chand, r/o village Sirsama Colony, Bir Mathana, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. State Bank of India Opposite New Grain Market Ladwa Road Pipli, District Kurukshetra.
2. S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager SBI Opposite New Grain Market Ladwa road, Pipli, Kurukshetra.

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

                       

Present:     Sh. K.K. Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.

 Opposite party no.1 exparte.

 Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

           

ORDER

                     This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Joginder Ram against State Bank of India and another, the opposite parties.

2.              Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant opened a new account in the name of his wife namely Smt. Sumitra Devi vide account no.36449329347 in the State Bank of India on 13.1.2017. That op no.1 insured the wife of complainant for Rs.2,00,000/- by deducting Rs.100/- half yearly. It is further alleged that the installment of Rs.100/- was deducted on 18.1.2017 but unluckily the wife of complainant died on 11.8.2017 in PGI Chandigarh. That complainant being husband of the deceased is entitled to the death claim of his wife. Hence, this complaint for seeking a direction to the ops to make payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @12% per annum and also to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- on account of deficiency in service since the op no.1 was informed regarding death of wife of complainant and further to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- as legal expenses.

3.             On notice, initially Sh. Ashwani Singh appeared on behalf of op no.1 but thereafter none appeared on behalf of op no.1 and as such op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.

4.             Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed written statement asserting therein that complaint is pre-mature as till date complainant has never lodged any claim/ informed to answering op, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering op and complaint deserves dismissal on this score alone. That no act of omission or commission has been attributed qua answering op. The complainant has not uttered even a single word against the answering op. It is further submitted that without admitting the maintainability of the complaint and without admitting any liability towards complainant, it is submitted that complainant is to be directed to firstly lodge claim with answering op alongwith documents as detailed in the written statement. Other preliminary objections regarding suppression of material facts, jurisdiction and no consumer dispute are also taken.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A.

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

7.             There is no denial of the fact on behalf of op no.2 that no amount of Rs.100/- was deducted. The said fact of deduction of Rs.100/- from the account of wife of complainant is evident from copy of pass book Ex.C6. The complainant has also placed on record copy of death certificate of Smt. Sumitra Devi his wife as Ex.C5 according to which she expired on 11.8.2017. As such the deduction of the amount of Rs.100/- on 18.1.2017 from the account of wife of complainant and insurance is not disputed by op no.2. Moreover, the op no.1 is exparte in this case. The op no.2 has also not denied the insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite parties as insurance amount for the death of his wife Smt. Sumitra Devi.

8.             In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation including litigation expenses. The complainant will have to complete all the required formalities with the ops and will have to submit the required documents to the ops. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:28.03.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.