Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/281/2014

Sarita Devi widow - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                    DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001

                                                                                                          Consumer Complaint No: 281 of 2014                                                                                                                          Date of Institution: 19.08.2014                                                                                                                                            Date of Decision:  30.06.2016

Sarita Devi widow of Shri Rajesh Kumar Constable, Resident of Village Litani, Tehsil Uklana, District Hisar.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

State Bank of India, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon through its Manager.

 

New India Assurance Co. Ltd,  Old Railway road, Gurgaon.

 

Concerned official of DCP Headquarter, Gurgaon.

 

..Opposite parties

                                                                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

 

BEFORE:     SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT

SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

                   SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Ms. Shashi Bala, Adv for the complainant.

                    Sh. S.S.Raghav, Adv for the OP-1

                    Shri N.K.Saini, Adv for OP-2

                    Representative of the OP-3.

 

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she is the widow of constable late Sh. Rajesh Kumar who met with an accident on 04.05.2013 while he was on official duty.  As per the Haryana Police norms there was a MOU signed by OP-1 vide which the State Bank of India has to give Rs. 3 Lacs as a police salary package to the widow of deceased as a financial assistance. The complainant vide letter no.22701/53/W3 dated 23.08.2012 had given all the documents in the office of OP-1 and the Bank vide their letter No.AGM/2013/270 dated 12.07.2013 had sent to the OP-2. All the documents have been sent within 35 days but the OP No.1 and 2 in collusion with each other had not processed the claim of the complainant. The complainant requested the opposite parties to release the claim of Rs. 3 Lac but of no use. Later on the claim of the complainant was wrongly and illegally rejected by the OP-2 on the false ground that the final papers were received to their office beyond the period of  180 days vide letter dated 20.12.2013. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs. 3 Lacs along with interest @ 18 % p.a.

2                 OP-1 in its written reply has alleged that complaint is bad for  mis-joinder of necessary party as OP-2  under the terms and conditions of the Personal Accident Insurance under Police Salary Package was liable to reimburse the claim and the role of the OP-1 was only to certify about the maintenance of PSP Account. Under the scheme all the correspondence relating to the insurance claim was to be taken up with the Insurance Company and the OP Bank was not liable to be involved. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.

3                 OP-2 in its written reply has alleged that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter as all the correspondence and communication was addressed to the office of the OP at Belapur, Navi Mumbai. In the present case the complainant had intimated the death only of the deceased  late Rajesh Kumar. It is pertinent to mention here that the deceased expired on 15.05.2013. Moreover all the documents pertaining to the said claim have not been submitted within the stipulated period of 180 days and thus, the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the opposite party no.2 vide letter dated 20.12.2013.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

4                 OP-3 in its written reply has alleged that Director General of Police, Haryana vide his office letter No.16339-91/W-3 dated 03.05.2012 has directed all the head of police offices in Haryana that salary account of all the officers/officials of police force be opened State Bank of India in the scheme ‘Police Salary Package’ as State Bank of India has provided free accident insurance and some other facilities on opening of salary account. Accordingly, salary account of all police officials of Police Commissionerate , Gurgaon was opened with OP-1. The salary account bearing No.32353151676 of Constable Rajesh Kumar No.2578/GGN who was serving in this Commissionerate was also opened under the scheme and the said constable died on 15.05.2013 due to road accident and as such his claim for insurance was sent to OP-1 vide Memo No.19324/WI dated 20.06.2013 well in time. The claim was further forwarded by OP-1 to Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vidya Commercial Complex, 2nd Floor, Plot No1, Sector-11, CBO Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614 i.e. OP-2 vide his office Memo No.AGM/2013/270 dated 12.07.2013 for further necessary action. Further OP-3 vide Memo No.29205/WI dated 20.09.2013 has also sent requisite information as well as necessary documents to OP-2 which were asked vide his office memo dated 05.07.2013. Form No.4 was not provided by the OP-2 at that time  and thus, the same was not sent with the other papers. Form No. 3 was submitted later by the complainant in the office of OP-3 and the same was sent vide Memo No.1555/WI dated 15.01.2014. Thus, the insurance company was fully responsible for not disbursing the claim to the complainant despite sending complete case in time and thereafter reminders.

5                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.

6                 However, during the pendency of the present complaint the Insurance Company has settled the claim of the complainant and this regard OP-2 has produced copy of letter dated 16.03.2015 vide which the claim of Rs.3 Lacs has been settled and the amount has been credited into the account of complainant on 16.03.2015.  Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is entitled to interest from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 19.08.2014 till 16.03.2015. We find force in the argument of learned counsel for the complainant. Accordingly, we direct the opposite party no.2 to pay interest @ 9 % p.a. on the amount of R. 3 Lacs from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 19.08.2014 till 16.03.2015. The complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.3100/-. The OP- 2 shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

Announced                                                                                                        (Subhash Goyal)

30.06.2016                                                                                                              President,

                                                                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                     Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member