DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

            Both these appeals have arisen out of the order  dated 17/06/2014 in Case No. 262/2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata-II (in short, District Forum). By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case. Being   aggrieved by the same, OP Nos. 1 and 2 thereof have preferred FA/807/2014, and OP No. 3 thereof has preferred A/1284/2014.

             The case of the Complainant, in short, is that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 offered a scheme of “Free Group Insurance for Accidental Death” as offered by the Proforma Op No. 3 for PNB Debit Card Holders who have Savings Account with the OPs and the Complainant is having A/c No. 1964000101105836 of his youngest son SumanChatterjee and accordingly the OP issued ATM Debit Card (gold) in favour of his said son. On 08.03.2011, his said son met a fatal road traffic accident and on 10.03.2011, he died. But, the OP No. 1 and 2 rejected the claim of the Complainant on the ground that only the first A/c holder is eligible for the insurance benefit. So, the Complainant wrote a letter to the OP Nos. 1 and 2 requesting for redressal of his grievances and also lodged a complaint to the Banking ombudsmant, but without any effect. Accordingly,  the case.

             On the other hand, the case of the OP Nos. 1 and 2 is that the Complainant is superannuated officer of the Bank and is a customer of the OP No.1. The petition of Complaint is liable to be  dismissed in limine as the claim does not meet the parameters as laid down in such a scheme.

             It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers any kind of anomaly so as to make  any dent therein.

Decision with reasons

             Ld. Advocate for the Punjab National Bank has submitted that this scheme is only applicable for the first account holder. Complainant has also made a complaint before the Ombudsman, but the same has been rejected and closed as no deficiency in service has been revealed. Further, there is no contractual obligation or liability of the Bank in the matter and all the obligations under the insurance policy at all times shall be between the Insurance Company and the Card Holders concerned.

             Ld. Advocate for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Punjab National Bank informed the Complainant by a letter dated 09.03.2012 that in case of joint holders, the benefits of the same are extended to the first A/c holder only. It is a free service rendered by the Insurance company on the basis of a MoU in between the Insurance Company and the Bank and free card  on tie-up is given as gift. The Complainant is never a customer of the Insurance Company and not a Policy Holder. The tie-up is only with the Bank.

             Ld. Advocate for the complainant has submitted that the Complainant had a joint with his deceased son and   only the Debit Card Holders were given the benefit. That card was in the name of his son who died in the accident and he was the Debit Card Holder solely. The Complainant had to go door to door, pillar to post, but was totally refused. This is not a case of joint Card Holders. His deceased son was the sole Debit Card Holder. There has been misinterpretation of MoU, by both the Bank and the Insurance Company. This has been properly considered by the Ld. District Forum in its findings. No such Circular being no. 161/2010 dated 20/10/2010 was circulated to the customer by the Bank.  It is a glaring example of unfair trade practice on the part of the Bank, where the Complainant himself used to work. As the claim is admissible to the PNB Debit Card Holder, the deceased son of the Complainant is fully covered under the scheme. It can not be said by any stretch of imagination that the Insurance Company is not the service provider to the Complainant,  he being a Savings A/c Holder of the Bank with  whom the Insurance Company has made a tie-up. The Insurance Company is a participant in the bidding by way of a close tender invited by the Bank for its Debit Card Holders for providing Group Accidental Death Insurance Policy and the bank has accepted this Insurance Company for   that purpose and both the Bank and the Insurance Company having agreed entered into a MoU in this regard.  And, it is not a charity. After all, it is a scheme, rather a marketing tool for both the Bank and the Insurance Company.

             It is evident that Suman Chatterjee is the Debit Card Holder of the Bank  and so by virtue of that, for his death, the Complainant is rightly entitled to the insurance claim as per the MoU in between the Bank and the Insurance Company. This is simply a misselling of product by both the Bank and the Insurance Company, if not an instance of unfair trade practice fully. The findings  of the Ld. District Forum is a correct reflection of the facts and the rules, and so the same is to be sustained. The award of the claim amount against the OPs along with the litigation cost imposed by the Ld. District Forum, but, the imposition of Rs.200/- per day as penalty is not a rightful one, and the same is struck off.  Accordingly, only this part of the impugned order is waived. Other parts of the impugned order do stand. The OPs are to comply the said order within 25 days from the date of this order. Both the appeals are thus allowed in part. The impugned order stands modified.

             Original order be placed in the earlier appeal being FA/807/2014 and a photocopy of the same be kept in the later appeal being A/1284/2014.