Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/713/2019

Punjab National Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Basanti Devi w/o Late Shri Durgaprasad - Opp.Party(s)

Dhruva Rathore

19 Jan 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:713/2019

 

Punjab National Bank, Head office at Plot No. 4, Sector 10,Dwarika, New Delhi having its Br.Office Opp. BDK Hospital, Station Road, Jhunjhunu (Main Branch)

Vs.

Smt. Basanti Devi w/o Late Sh.Durgaprasad r/o Dorasar Tehsil & Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

 

Date of Order 19.01.2021

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Banwari Lal Sharma-President

Hon'ble Mr.Ramphool Gurjar -Member

 

Mr.Dhruv Rathore counsel for the appellant

Mr.Sanjay Mehla, Mr. Nagendra Sharma and Mr. Aman Bhamu counsel for the respondent

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA, PRESIDENT ):

 

Appellant/non-complainant preferred this appel u/s 15 of the C.P.Act,1986 assailing the impugned order dated 20.6.2019 pssed by the learned DCF Jhunjhunu in Complaint No. 21/2018 title is Smt.Basanti Devi Vs. Punjab National Bank.

 

The brief facts of the matter is that respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the learned DCF on 6.2.2018 stating therein that husband of complainant borrowed loan on 2.1.2016 under Kisan Credit Card Scheme through Kisan Card No. 88-1704 from appellant bank. It was also mentioned in the complaint that when husband of the complainant Durgaprasad took loan from bank he was insured under Kisan Beema Yojna and if the borrower dies due to any reason then the entire loan amount will be waived off and his legal heirs will be entitled to receive the sum assured of Rs. 5 lakhs alongwith interest. It was further pleaded that complainant's husband Mr.Durga Prasad expired all of sudden at Dorasar. The fact of death was informed to appellant bank

 

3

 

immediately and it was in the instance of the appellant bank that on 11.8.2017 the death certificte of the complainant's husband alongwith panchnama made by village panchayat was handed over to the appellant bank. It was further pleaded that the appellant bank assured the complainant that loan account pertaining to her husband will be closed and the sum insured i.e. Rs.5 lakhs will be given to the complainant. In order to get the sum insured and to waive the loan amount the complainant contacted the appellant so many times but nothing was done on part of the appellant bank. Lastly it was prayed that appellant may be directed to close the loan account pertaining to Durga Prasad i.e. husband of the complainant by depositing the loan amount and appellant be directed to make payment to sum insured i.e. Rs. 5 lakhs under Kisan Beema Yojna alongwith interest and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

 

The appellant/ non-complainant filed reply to the complaint wherein it was stated that the complainant's husband was insured under the scheme Kisan Beema Yojna but the complainant has submitted the document of

 

4

 

Pradhanmantri Suraksha Beema Yojna alongwith consent letter and therefore, complaint was filed on wrong facts. Loan agreement was executed by the husband of the complainant on pursuance of Kisan Credit Card. It was further stated that no insurance cover was provided to husband of the complainant and there was no provision to waive the loan amount. It was stated that loan would be waived of in the event of death of borrower. It was further stated that the existence of loan was duly apprised to the complainant by the bank and she was also apprised of the fact that the legal heirs of the borrower are required to repay the loan in event of death of borrower and in case the loan remains un-repaid then recovery would be made from the land of the borrower. All other allegations were denied in the same reply and lastly it was prayed that complaint may be dismissed.

 

The learned DCF after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and ordered that appellant bank recovered the premium amount from KCC account of husband of the complainant for Pradhanmantri Beema Yojna on 23.5.2017, therefore, Rs. 2 lakhs be paid to the complainant as sum

 

5

 

insured and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony. It was also ordered that interest @ 8% may also be paid from the date of presentation of claim petition i.e. 6.2.2018.

 

Notice of the appel was given to respondent/complainant

and record of the learned DCF was called for.

 

Heard.

 

The learned counsel Mr.Dhruv Rathore appearing on behalf of the appellant bank submits that there was no privity of contract between the appellant bank and the borrower i.e. Durgaprasd regarding any insurance policy. He submits that Rs. 12/- was debited from the KCC account of late Durgaprasad as premium of group insurance for his personal accidental injury/death which was deposited to Oriental Insurance Co. , therefore sum insured is to be paid by the insurance company and insurance company has not been impleaded as party. He further submits that appellant bank is facilitating for accidental death. The sum insured can be claimed only under the scheme of Pradhanmantri Beema

 

6

 

Suraksha Yojna. He further submits that though the matter is very much late still if respondent complainant completes the formalities the appellant may process his claim to the respective insurance company i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. He lastly submits that appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.

 

Per contra Sh.Sanjay Mahla learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ complainant supported the impugned order and submits that complainant is an illiterate lady who is having rural background. She even cannot write her name still she informed the bank within time regarding the fact of death of her husband and she also informed to the concerned Registrar of Birth and Death i.e. Sarpanch Village Panchayat Dorasar Distt. Jhunjhunu wherefrom she received the death certificate on 10.8.2017 and soon after receiving the death certificate she also submitted the death certificate before the appellant's officers with other relevant documents. He submits that it was the duty of the bank to process her claim. If they failed to perform their duties then the respondent cannot be held liable for that. He submits that if the delay is being

 

7

 

condoned and bank is ready to forward her claim, the respondent/complainant is ready to co-operate the bank. Lastly he submitted that appeal may be dismissed.

 

We have considered the rival submissions.

 

It is not disputed that there was an account of Kisan Credit Card of late Durgaprasad who was husband of the complainant and it is also not disputed that appellant bank debited Rs. 12/- as premium for group insurance for the unnatural death of the account holder i.e. Durgaprasad. As per arguments of learned counsel for the appellant the group insurer is Oriental Insurance Company and bank is facilitating agency and master policy holder on behalf of the participating subscriber, therefore, it is the duty of the bank to process the claim papers of complainant for disbursing the insured amount. Even after receiving information from complainant, the appellant bank failed to process her claim case being a master policy holder which is clear cut deficiency in service. Most of the Kisan Credit Card holders are poor and illiterate farmers. They require assistance for banking and insurance matters and

 

8

 

being master policy holder it is expected that the officials of appellant bank co-operate these illiterate innocent farmers for providing their right of benefits but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case officials of appellant bank failed to perform their duties which also comes in purview of deficiency in service. However, what the case may be, looking to the special features of the case and especially the fact that complainant has informed the appellant within time regarding death of her husband and thereafter submitted his death certificate and due to deficiency in service of appellant her case could not be processed by the appellant bank. However, considering these facts the learned DCF awarded amount against the bank while as per group insurance policy which admits both the parties, the insurer is Oriental Insurance Company who is liable for sum insured. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside and it is directed that appellant bank shall process the case of respondent/complainant being a master policy holder for providing her the sum insured amount for which she is entitled and respondent / complainant is also directed to co-operate the appellant bank for completing the claim formalities. Both parties are directed to complete the

9

 

formalities within 15 days. The 50% amount which was deposited by the appellnt bank before the District Consumer Forum,Jhunjhunu before filing this appel, may be returned to the appellant bank after completion of the claim proceedings.

 

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

 

(R.P.Gurjar) (Banwari Lal Sharma)

Member President

 

 

nm