THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
APPEAL NO.1512/2018
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
Central Bank of India,
Site No.480, 3rd Stage,
BEML Employees House Building,
Raja Rajeshwari Nagar,
Bengaluru – 560 098
Represented by its ...Appellant/s
Chief Manager, Sri.S.Raghuram,
Aged about 59 years,
Regional office, Bengaluru
(By Sri.R.K.Amarnath, Advocate)
-Versus-
Smt.Sujatha
W/o late Sri.R.Venkataramana
Reddy, Aged about 44 years,
Residing at No.28, 3rd Cross,
1st Phase, BEML 5th Stage, … Respondent/s
Halagevaderahalli,
Raja Rajeshwari Nagar,
Bengaluru- 560 098
(By Sri.M.S.Srivalsa, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party in complaint No.1813/2017 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the 4th Addl. District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru which directed this appellant to pay Rs.2.00 lakhs under the scheme called Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyothi Bima Yojana and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses and submits that the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service in not paying the assured amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs, after demises of her husband under the scheme called Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyothi Bima Yojana.
2. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above said amount. In fact this appellant is not liable to pay any amount under the said scheme to the complainant as the amount of Rs.330/- was not debited from the husband of the complainant’s account, though the deceased husband of complainant instructed to debit the said amount. At the time of registering his name to the said scheme, this appellant demanded for production of Aadhar card but the complainant’s husband had not tendered the said documents and assured to produce the same subsequently for which this appellant bank had not debited the amount of Rs.330/- into the scheme and awaited for production of document. But the husband of the complainant has not turned up to this appellant bank for production of the documents, subsequently he died on 9.7.2016. But the complainant being a nominee and legal representative of the complainant’s husband sought for compensation under the said scheme. The said claim was rejected as the name of the husband of the complainant was not enrolled under the said scheme and shown their inability. But the District Commission without considering the said fact had allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above said amount. The order passed by the District Commission lacks legality, hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
3. Heard from both sides.
4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant’s husband was account holder in the appellant’s bank bearing SB account No.3339367033. It is also in not dispute that, the husband of the complainant instructed this appellant to pay an amount of Rs.330/- towards the said Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyothi Bima Yojana scheme to become a member of the said policy. At the time of said instruction, this appellant bank demanded for production of Aadhar Card from the account holder/ husband of the complainant. But the husband of complainant had assured to produce the same on the next visit to the bank, but after assurance the husband of the complainant not turn up to produce the Aadhar Card to the appellant bank. Though the name of the husband of complainant was enrolled and registered vide registration Sl.No.129, the amount of Rs.330/- towards this scheme was not paid to the said policy. When the amount was not paid towards the policy, mere enrolling to the said policy will not cover the risk of payment of Rs.2.00 lakhs after death. The husband of complainant once assured to provide Aadhar card, he had to tender the said documents, instead of that the husband of complainant had not turned up and even the amount of Rs.330/- was not debited from his account towards the policy. Hence, there is no subscription was made, the appellant was not under the obligation to pay the said amount to the complainant. The District Commission made an error in not noticing the negligence on the part of the husband of the complainant in not providing the documents required by appellant and also fail to appreciate that an amount of Rs.330/- was not debited towards the said policy. In the absence of such the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation under the scheme. The order passed by the District Commission lacks of legality. We do not find any deficiency in service in not paying the amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the complainant. Hence, the order passed by the District Commission requires to be set aside. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed. As such the appeal is allowed and consequently the complaint is dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The Appeal is allowed. No order as to cost.
The impugned order passed by the 4th Addl. District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.1813/2017 dated 1-8-2018 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Party.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Member Judicial Member
Jrk/-
