Punjab National Bank, Main Branch Office PNB House, Sector 17-B, Bank Square, Chandigarh, through its Asstt. General Manager.

2)    Punjab National Bank Ltd., Transaction Banking Division, HO, 5, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001, through its Asstt. General Manager.

                                                                             .…Appellant

                                      Vs.

Vandana Sharma w/o Late Sh.Rakesh Sharma, R/o H.No.331/1, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh

                                                                             …. Respondent

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, (Retd.) PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. D.K. Singal, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Sh. G.D. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

              This is an appeal filed by the appellants/ Opposite Parties against the order, dated 12.12.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint, in the following manner;

“In view of the above discussion, findings as well as the cited law, we are of the firm opinion that the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs is writ large. Therefore, the complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to pay the sum assured amount of Rs.2.00 lacs to the complainant being the personal accidental insurance cover/death benefit of her deceased husband Sh.Rakesh Sharma.  The OPs are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing her mental & physical harassment on account of their deficient act, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to refund the above awarded amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.2.00 lacs plus Rs.50,000/-) along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 29.6.2012 till its actual payment to the complainant, besides paying litigation costs, as aforesaid.”

2                             Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the husband of the complainant Sh. Rakesh Sharma, holding a Saving Bank Account with Opposite Party  No.1 and enjoying Debit Card & ATM Card Facility against it, died in a motor accident on 28.6.2010. FIR Annexure C-3 was lodged.  It was stated that intimation about the death of husband of the complainant was given to Opposite Party-1. It was further that the deceased husband of the complainant, was covered under a Personal Accident Insurance Benefit Scheme of   Opposite Parties to the extent of Rs.2.00 lacs, and this insurance benefit was available to all PNB Debit Card Holders.  It was further stated that the risk under the said Scheme commenced from the date of issuance of debit card with no expiry date or period. Thereafter, the complainant, being the wife of the deceased and beneficiary of the insurance cover, lodged a claim with  the Opposite Parties, followed by e-mails ( Ann.C-9 to C-11), but the same was repudiated by them vide Ann.C-12 stating therein that no such scheme was applicable to the deceased husband at the time of his death by accident. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the   Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint was filed.

3                   The Opposite Parties, filed a joint reply, and admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It was stated that, as per the statement father of the deceased under Section 174 Cr.P.C., mentioned in the F.I.R. dated 02.07.2010, Mr.Rakesh Sharma died of natural death.  It was further stated that since the accident was not the direct cause of death of the deceased, hence there was no claim liability on the  Opposite Parties.  It was further stated that the bank unlike any other business organization, launched some promotional schemes for promotion of some of its product, which were for specified period and not permanent in nature.  It was further stated that no intimation of death of the account holder, was given to the bank immediately after the same took place.  It was further stated that the complainant knowing the fact of non-eligibility, tried to mislead the Forum, by referring to various documents gathered from different sources, whether relevant or not. It was further stated that the complainant through the complaint, raised a claim of Rs.2.00 lacs, whereas Ann.C-13 produced by the complainant revealed the free accidental insurance coverage of Rs.50,000/- which proved that the complainant gathered the documents, related to different promotional schemes brought from time to time, and used them to support the cooked up claim petition.  All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the   Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

4                   The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5                   After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order

6                   Aggrieved by the order, passed by the District Forum, the appellants/  Opposite Parties, have filed the instant appeal. 

7                   We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have perused the record, carefully.

8                   The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the District Forum erred while awarding Rs.2.00 lacs, on account of accidental death insurance benefit by relying upon Annexure C-5, which had no relation to the case of the complainant because the same was issued to a different customer and not to the husband of the complainant. It was further submitted that the complainant was extended benefit of accidental insurance to the extent of Rs.50,000/- which is evident from Annexure C-13 placed on record by the complainant.  It was further submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that Annexure C-5 clearly revealed that insurance benefit of Rs.2.00 lacs was extended to all PNB Debit Card holders who were having Platinum Cards and since the husband of the complainant was having classic card and the benefit of insurance on that card was Rs.50,000/- which is corroborated from the literature placed on record as Annexure A-1.  It was further submitted that however, the benefit of accidental death insurance of Rs.50,000/- was not in operation, at the time of accident of the husband of the respondent as the same was operative upto 31.3.2007, and notice to this effect was given  on the website of the appellant.

9                   On the other hand the Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the District Forum, rightly allowed the complaint after proper appreciation of the facts and the same requires no interference of this Commission. It was further submitted that the appellant never educated the deceased family about its entitlement and benefit under various benevolent & promotional schemes, which they were duty bound to disclose. Hence there was deficiency in rendering service on their part.

10              Admittedly, the husband of the respondent/complainant, was having saving bank account with Opposite Party No.1 with debit card/ATM facility.   The perusal of literature produced on record as Annexure A-1 by the appellant clearly shows that saving bank account holders could be issued only classic debit card, in personalized or non personalized form and a classic debit card holder was entitled to accidental death insurance claim, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- .  Hence it is proved that the husband of the respondent/complainant was holding classic debit card, and the respondent/complainant was entitled for accidental death insurance claim to the tune of Rs.50,000/-  instead of Rs.2.00 lacs as claimed by her. This fact is further corroborated from Annexures C-13 and A-1. But according to the   Opposite Parties as the accidental death insurance scheme was operative upto 31.3.2007, hence, the respondent/complainant was not entitled to any benefit thereof. But the   Opposite Parties failed to produce on record any cogent document to prove that the same was operative upto 31.3.2007. Hence in the absence of any concrete evidence, on record, it cannot be believed that the scheme, in question, was not in operation, at the time of death of the husband of the respondent. Thus, it is established, that the husband of the complainant was fully covered under the accidental death insurance, and the respondent/complainant was entitled to its benefit, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- as her husband was holding a classic debit card.  But the District Forum without properly appreciating the facts of the case awarded the respondent/complainant Rs.2.00 lac towards accident death insurance benefit, which was invalid and illegal and liable to be modified.  

11                       Though it was admitted by the  Opposite Parties that as per Annexure C-13 they extended Rs.50,000/- as accidental death insurance benefit to the husband of the respondent/complainant, yet it wrongly repudiated the genuine claim of the respondent/complainant, on the ground, that in June 2010 the accidental death insurance scheme was not in existence. However, they failed to prove their stand by way of any cogent evidence. Hence it was a gross deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties, to repudiate the genuine claim of the respondent/complaint, for which they are liable to pay compensation to the respondent/complaint. Hence the District Forum rightly awarded compensation and cost to the complainant against the   Opposite Parties. However, the compensation and cost granted by the District Forum are on the higher side and the same requires to be reduced and the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified.

12                       In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the appeal with no order as to costs. The impugned order is modified in the following manner;

i)                   The appellants/Opposite Parties shall pay to the respondent/complainant Rs.50,000/- towards accidental death insurance benefit instead of Rs.2.00 lacs awarded by the District Forum.

ii)                 The Appellants/Opposite Parties shall pay to the respondent/complainant Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, instead of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the District Forum.

iii)              The appellants/Opposite Parties shall further pay to the respondent/complainant Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation, instead of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the District Forum.  

13                       The aforesaid order shall be complied with, by the appellants/Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid awarded amount mentioned in clauses (i) & (ii) above @12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides payment of costs.

14                       Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.