DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 26^th day of July 2024.
                                                                                      Filed on: 13.12.2022

PRESENT:

Shri. D.B. Binu,                                            President
Shri. V. Ramachandran,                               Member
Smt. Sreevidhia. T.N,                                   Member

C C 572/2022

Complainant:

K Viswanathan, S/o Late S Krishnan, Gokul House, No. 32/329,
Kannankulangara, Thripunithura-682301, Ernakulam.

(K.Viswanathan, Nol7,Flat No.F-I, Karpagaom Gardens, 2^nd Link Street, Adyar, Chennai-600 020)

V/s

Opposite Party:

The Branch Manager State Bank Of India NF Thripunithura Branch, Prasanth Trade Centre, North fort, Thripunithura -682301 Ernakulam.

(Adv.P.Gopalakrishna Menon, M.Jithesh Menon, Indu, No.79, DD Oceano Mall, Marine Drive, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 011)

F I N A L    O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President

1.A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

This complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant who is a senior citizen alleges that the opposite party had debited an amount of Rs.12/- (Rupees twelve only) from the SB account on 31-05-2015 without written consent for the Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) scheme. This unauthorized debit was confirmed through an RTI reply dated 07-09-2020. The PMSBY scheme is optional, and other pensioners, including the complainant's wife, were not compulsorily enrolled. The complainant provided a consent-cum-declaration form from SBI and the National Insurance Company, proving the scheme's optional nature.

On 24-05-2020, the complainant requested to discontinue the scheme, but the premium for 2021 was still debited on 15-05-2021, causing severe mental shock. The premium was re-credited only on 20-07-2021 after a complaint to higher authorities.

Additionally, there was a delay in crediting the complainant's January 2017 pension, which was only paid on 02-03-2017 due to the improper uploading of the digital life certificate by the opposite party. This delay caused significant financial hardship and mental agony. The opposite party admitted the delay but provided no evidence for their claimed actions.

The complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony due to the opposite party's negligence and deficiency in service.

2. Notice:

The Commission issued a notice to the opposite party, who subsequently filed their version.

3. VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

The Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) is a social security scheme by the Government of India for accidental insurance at a low premium of Rs.12 per annum (now Rs.20 per annum). The government instructed banks to promote the scheme widely, using newspapers, banners, posters, and social media. Banks informed customers, including the complainant, about the scheme, often obtaining consent over the phone. Written consent from the complainant is not available in the bank’s records.

The complainant's account was debited annually for the premium from 2016 to 2021. Upon receiving the complainant's request to stop deductions, the bank reversed the May 2021 premium and credited it back to his account. No further premiums were debited thereafter.

Regarding the pension complaint, the bank states that the pension was credited regularly on or before the 3rd of the succeeding month. The digital life certificate can be uploaded on the Jeevan Pramaan website. Although the complainant claimed to have submitted the certificate digitally, the January 2017 pension was not credited in January or early February 2017. As a customer service measure, the bank advised the complainant to submit the certificate manually to expedite the pension credit. The pension for January and February 2017 was credited on 2nd March 2017, and the pension for March 2017 was credited on 3rd April 2017. Since then, the pension has been credited timely, except for minor delays due to holidays.

The bank asserts that it has provided the utmost customer service and immediate remedial measures to address the complainant's grievances. Given these efforts, the bank requests that the complainant's claim be rejected and that he be advised to avoid disturbing bank officials, as it impacts their routine work and customer service.

4. Evidence:

The complainant submitted a proof affidavit along with seven documents. The documents in the complaint are marked as Exhibits A1 to A7:

• Exhibit A1: Copy of letter dated 07.09.2020 of Bank.
• Exhibit A2: Copy of letter dated 25.05.2020.
• Exhibit A3: Opposite party’s letter dated 30.07.2021.
• Exhibit A4: Copy of news report in English daily.
• Exhibit A5: Copy of Jeevan Praman.
• Exhibit A6: Copy of letter dated 12.01.2023 of Bank.
• Exhibit A7: Copy of Report of monthly Journal.

The opposite party submitted a proof affidavit along with 2 documents:

• Statements of account 30777493612 of Mr. Viswanathan K., from 01.04.2015 to 11.01.2023
• Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana - Consent cum Declaration Form.

5.Points for Consideration:

The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
2. ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant? I
3. ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party? iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?

6.Argument Note Filed by the Complainant:

The complainant's SB account was debited with Rs.12/- on 31-05-2015 without consent for the PMSBY scheme, which is optional. This unauthorized action was confirmed through an RTI reply dated 07-09-2020. Other pensioners, including the complainant's wife, were not enrolled compulsorily in May 2015. The Thirunalveli Consumer Court previously ruled in favor of a similar complainant, disproving the opposite party's affidavit.

A consent-cum-declaration form from SBI and the National Insurance Company proves the scheme's optional nature. Despite requesting discontinuation on 24-05-2020, the premium for 2021 was debited on 15-05-2021, causing severe mental shock. The premium was re-credited only on 20-07-2021 after a complaint. The complainant cited a similar case where the Thirunalveli Consumer Court fined the opposite party.

A one-month delay occurred in crediting the January 2017 pension, paid only on 02-03-2017, due to the opposite party's failure to upload the digital life certificate promptly. This delay caused financial hardship and mental agony. The opposite party admitted the delay but provided no evidence for their claimed actions. The complainant asserts that timely action would have avoided the delay, proving negligence and deficiency in service.

The complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony due to the opposite party's actions. The complainant seeks the complaint to be allowed in full with costs and compensation.

7. Argument Note by Sri. M. Jithesh Menon, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party:

The complainant seeks Rs.14,000/- as compensation for alleged mental agony due to a deficiency in service. The opposite party contends there has been no deficiency and that the complaint is baseless, warranting dismissal with costs.

Gist of the Case: The complainant's account was debited the Rs.12/- annually from 31-05-2015 to 2021 for the PMSBY scheme, which the government instructed banks to popularize. The scheme was implemented as a compulsory measure, and while the complainant’s written consent is unavailable, the premium debits were a part of this initiative. The complainant requested to cancel the policy on 24-05-2020, but the auto-renewal feature was not deactivated, resulting in another debit on 15-05-2021. This amount was refunded on 20-07-2021, and no further premiums were debited thereafter. The bank argues that this procedural delay does not constitute a financial loss or service deficiency.

Regarding the pension for January and February 2017, the complainant's digital life certificate submission on 01-11-2016 was not properly uploaded, delaying the pension credit. The bank advised manual submission, and upon receiving the physical certificate on 02-02-2017, the pensions were credited on 02-03-2017. The bank asserts that the pension delay was due to a technical error in the online submission and that the complainant did not suffer any financial loss or injury. The complaint was also filed almost five years after the cause of action, making it barred by limitation under the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The bank maintains that it provided prompt customer service and resolved the issue timely. The opposite party requests that the complaint be dismissed, as the claims lack merit and the bank acted lawfully without any deficiency in service.

            We have carefully heard the submission made at length by the complainant and Counsel representing the opposite party. and have also considered the entire evidence on record.

8.Analysis and Legal Reasoning:

A. Maintainability of the Complaint:

                  The complainant has approached the Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, raising two grievances. The first grievance is that the complainant's SB account was debited Rs.12 on 31-05-2015 without consent for the PMSBY scheme, which is optional. This grievance is maintainable as it pertains to allegations of deficiency in service by the opposite party.

However, the second grievance concerns the delay in crediting the complainant's pension for January and February 2017. Under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, a complaint must be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arises. In this case, the complaint should have been filed by early 2019. The complainant failed to provide a valid reason for the four-and-a-half-year delay and did not file a delay condonation petition. This principle is supported by the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, where a similar delay was dismissed. Therefore, the complaint regarding the delay in crediting the pension for January and February 2017 is time-barred and not maintainable.

B. Deficiency in Service and Negligence:

The opposite party's failure to obtain written consent before debiting the complainant's account for the PMSBY scheme constitutes a deficiency in service. The complainant provided evidence of this unauthorized debit through an RTI reply.

The complainant's grievances are supported by documentary evidence, including the RTI reply (Exhibit A1) and the consent-cum-declaration form.

C. Liability of the Opposite Party:

The opposite party is liable for the unauthorized debit of Rs.12 from the complainant's account, which caused significant mental agony and financial hardship to the complainant. The opposite party's actions demonstrate negligence and a failure to provide the expected level of service.

            Under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, a complaint must be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arises. This means the complaint should have been filed by early 2019. The Act specifies that the District Commission, the State Commission, or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint filed beyond this two-year period unless the complainant can demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay.

                    In this case, the complainant failed to provide a valid justification for the significant delay in filing the complaint. The absence of a valid reason for the four-and-a-half-year delay means the complaint is barred by the limitation period set by the Act. This principle is supported by the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, where the Hon’ble National Commission's decision to dismiss a petition due to a similar delay was upheld by the apex court. The complainant herein did not file a delay condonation petition before the Commission. The ruling emphasized that without sufficient cause for the delay, complaints cannot be entertained beyond the statutory period. Therefore, the Hon’ble National Commission was correct in dismissing the revision petition as time-barred, aligning with the provisions and intent of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, we reject the second grievance raised by the complainant about the delay in crediting their pension for January and February 2017. Upon reviewing the circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the claims made by the complainant have merit. The opposite party did not obtain written consent before debiting the complainant's account for the PMSBY scheme due to negligence. The complainant suffered mental agony and financial hardship due to these actions.

                We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite party in connection with the unauthorized debit from the complainant's account. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite party.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the unauthorized debit from the complainant's account.

Hence, the prayer is allowed as follows:

I.        The Opposite Party shall pay ₹2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation for the unauthorized debit from the complainant's SB account for the PMSBY scheme. This amount is awarded for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, as well as for the mental agony and physical hardships endured by the complainant.

II.    The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant ₹3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards the cost of the proceedings.

The Opposite Party is mandated to comply with the directives mentioned above within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failure to comply with the payment orders under point (I) will result in interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (13.12.2022) until the date of full payment realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this 26^th day of July 2024.

Sd/-

                                                                             D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s evidence:

• Exhibit A1: Copy of letter dated 07.09.2020 of Bank, which may be marked as Document No.1
• Exhibit A2: Copy of letter dated 25.05.2020 may be marked as Document No.2
• Exhibit A3: Opposite party’s letter dated 30.07.2021 marked as document No3
• Exhibit A4: Copy of news report in English daily marked as Document no.4
• Exhibit A5: Copy of Jeevan Praman as may be marked as Document No.5
• Exhibit A6: Copy of letter dated 12.01.2023 of Bank, marked as Document No.6
• Exhibit A7: Copy of Report of monthly Journal may be marked as Document No.7

Date of dispatch:

By Hand:
By Post:

uk/.