Punjab

StateCommission

A/758/2016

Punjab National Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sukhdeep Kaur - Opp.Party(s)

Arvind Rajotia

14 Sep 2017

ORDER

                                                                             2^Nd ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.758 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution: 04.10.2016

                                                          Order Reserved on : 31.08.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:   14.09.2017

 

Punjab National Bank, Branch Office New Shalley, Tehsil & District Gurdaspur, through its Sr. Manager.

                                         Appellant/Opposite party no.1

Versus

1. SukhdeepKaur widow of late Sh. Gurnam Singh s/o Sh. Surain Singh.
2. ManpreetKaur minor d/o late Sh. Gurnam Singh through her monther Smt. SukhdeepKaur being natural guardian.
3. Jobanpreet Singh, minor s/o Late Sh. Gurnam Singh through her mother Smt. SukhdeepKaur being natural guardian.
4. Surain Singh s/o Sh. Teja Singh.
5. GurmeetKaur w/o Sh. Surain Singh.

(Respondent No.1 to 5 all r/o Village Pandher, Post Office Pull Tibri, Tehsil & District Gurdaspur).

6. Oriental Insurnace Company, Registered Office, Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, through its Manager.
   •  
7. Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Hanuman Chowk, Gurdaspur, Tehsil & District Gurdaspur through its Chief Manager.

                                                Performa respondent/opposite party no.2     

First Appeal against order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Gurdaspur.

Quorum:-

          ShriGurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.

ShriRajinder Kumar Goyal, Member  

Present:-

          For appellant                         :         Ms. Gunjan Gera, Advocate

          For respondents no.1to5      :         Sh.R.K. Arya, Advocate

          For respondent no.6             :         Sh.R.C. Gupta, Advocate

          For respondent No.7            :         Ex-parte

RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL MEMBER :-

ORDER

                    The appellant/opposite party No.1 (hereinreferred to as OP No.1) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 10.08.2016passed in Consumer Complaint No.411 of 2015 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (herein referred as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainants was partly allowed and ordered OP No.1-Bank to pay the Pradhan Mantri Suraksha BeemaYozna (PMSBY)claim proceeds (to its full benefits) to the complainants besides to pay her Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment. However OP No.1 Bank shall be at liberty to claim reimbursement or otherwise share/recover the award amount (so paid in such like situations) with theOP No.3 insurers/and/or from its delinquent officer employees as per their own discretion/prerogative/inter-se arrangements etc.

2.                Complaint was filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 5/complainants under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against theOPs on the averments that Sh. Gurnam Singh husband of complainant No.1 opened his saving fund account No.2709000101158125 in the year 2014 with Op No.1.  Sh. Gurnam Singh had visited the Branch Office of Op No.1for availing PradhanMantriSurakshaBeemaYozna,which commenced from Ist June 2015. The Bank Manager and the concerned staff had taken signatures of Gurnam Singh on requisite papers. Ultimately an amount of Rs.12/- was debited by the Bank Authorities from the account of deceased Gurnam Singh on 12.06.2015 as such the deceased Gurnam Singh had become member of the said scheme. On 13.06.2015,deceased Gurnam Singh met with an accident at Jalandhar while returning from New Delhi and expired on 14.06.2015.Thereafter, the complainants being the legal heirs of the deceased Gurnam Singh approached the Ops with the request to make a payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to them on account of  death of Gurnam Singh in road accident and  had also submitted the requisite documents as demanded by the Ops. The OPs flatly refused to admit their genuine and legal claim. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops, hence this complaint.

3.                The complainant further requested to make the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of death till its actual realization, to  the complainants on account of death of deceased Gurnam Singh in road accident as per the scheme launched by the Prime Minister. Further requested to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainants due to harassment suffered by them from the hands of OP’s along with litigation expenses.

4.                Op No.1 contested the complaint and filed written reply submitting therein that Sh. Gurnam Singh s/o Sh. Surain Singh r/o village Pandher was maintaining saving bank account in their Branch. As per consent cum declaration form signed by Sh. Gurnam Singh on 11.06.2015 this account was debited with Rs.12/- on 12.06.2015 for insurance cover under PMSBY. ShGurnam Singh had also accepted the condition available on the consent cum declaration form dated 11.06.2015, while obtaining the cover under the scheme that cover shall commence from Ist of the Month subsequent to the date of enrolment in the scheme. It has been further submitted that Mrs. SukhdeepKaur widow of the deceased  as a nominee of late Sh. GurnamSingh approached the OP’s on 20.09.2015, for settlement of death claim amount, under PMSBY.The claim was forwarded to their HO on 22.09.2015 and subsequently it was rejected by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, with which their Bank had tie up for operationalization of this scheme. Under the clause that “as per PMSBY the insurance starts from Ist day of the next month of the proposal date, which means the commencement date of insurance policy of deceasedGurnam Singh was 01.07.2015, as such, the claim was not payable. It was also submitted that Sh. Gurnam Singh had accepted this condition in the consent cum declaration form dated 11.06.2015 while obtaining cover under this scheme whereby he agreed and accepted that cover shall commence from Ist of the month subsequent to the date of enrolement in the scheme. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP’s  and claim was rightly rejected by the insurance company as per rules for the scheme.

                   Op No.2-Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Hanuman Chowk, Gurdaspur,filed their written reply stating that the saving bank accounts were maintained at Branch Office New Shalla, so the issue did not pertain to their branch.

                   OP No.3 also submitted written reply stating that deceased Gurnam Singh was insured under the PMSBY through his banker i.e. OP No.1. OP No.1 and 2 forwarded the claim in respect of deceased Gurnam Singh and the same was replied vide letter dated 21.10.2015 that as per PMSBY the insurance start from Ist day of the next month of the proposal date which means the commencement date of the insurance of Gurnam Singh was 01.07.2015 whereas he expired on 14.06.2015 i.e. before commencement date of insurance policy, as such, the claim was not payable.

5.                Before the District Forum the parties led their respective evidence.

6.                In support of their allegations, the complainant had tendered her own affidavit Ex.C-1, along with other documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7. On the other hand Sh. DevinderVashist, Senior Manager of OP No.1 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, along with documents Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP1/5

7.                After going through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, written version filed by OPs evidence and documents brought on record the complaint filed by the complainants was partly allowedas referred above.

8.                Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum the appellants/OP No.1 has filed the present appeal.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Ops and respondent/complainant and havepersued the record carefully.

10.              It was argued by the counsel for the appellant/Op No.1 that the order passed by the District Forum is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside on the ground that the premium of PMSBY was debited from the account of the husband of respondent No.1/complainant on 12.06.2015. However, as per consent cum declaration form Ex.OP1/1,the cover was to commence from Ist of the Month subsequent to the date of enrolement in the scheme i.e. 12.06.2015. As such, the cover was to commence with effect from 01.07.2015 (Ist of the Month after premium is paid). Therefore, no claim was payable. Hence, the impugned order be set aside. In reply before the District Forum dated 15.12.2015 by OP no.1, it was submitted that the deceased Gurnam Singh had accepted this condition available in the consent cum declaration form dated 11.06.2015, while obtaining cover under the scheme whereas complainants counsel stated that premium was paid on 12.06.2015 by auto debit from the account of deceased Gurnam Singh no terms and conditions of the policy were explained to the complainant.On 13.06.2015 Gurnam Singh met with an accident at Jalandhar and expired on 14.06.2015.Claim was filed which was wrongly repudiated by the Ops. District Forum has rightly allowed the claim. It be affirmed.

11.              Counsel for the OP No.6 argued that Oriental Insurance Company is not in anyway responsible to explain the terms and conditions to the complainant as the master policy is with the Bank, therefore, the bank was responsible to convey the terms and conditions of the policy to the insured.

12.              The consent letter is bound to the deceased Gurnam Singh because once he signed the document he did not raise any objection that it was got executed from him under threat or any pressure. The complainant did not raise any objection after execution of this document. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case”Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Aggarwal Steel”, 2009(4) CCC 598 2010 (1) SCC 83 wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that ‘when a person signs the document, there is presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signature thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted’.

13.              Once the terms and conditions with regard to commencement of the policy were clear then the complainant cannot raise the objection with regard to the commencement of the policy. The District Forum while passing the order did not appreciate the date of commencement of the policy. The deceased Gurnam Singh had expired before the commencement of the policy. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any claim under that policy. The findings of the District Forum that policy terms and conditions that insurance cover will start from Ist of the succeeding month to the premium auto debiting date were not the consumer friendly are wrong findings given by the District Forum because the Consumer Fora is not to interpret the term of the policy. The parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy and Consumer Fora cannot impose its own terms and conditions or its opinion while interpreting the policy terms and conditions. This fact was not challenged by the counsel for the respondents during the course of arguments, therefore, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Forum is not justified and is liable to be set aside. 

14.              In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the consumer complaint stands dismissed being without any merit.

15.              The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant/OP No.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 90 days, from the dispatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.

16.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the Court cases.

 

                                                                     (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

                                                                   Presiding Judicial Member

 

 

                                                                  

                                                                   (Rajinder Kumar Goyal)

                                                                             Member

 

 

September   14,2017

PK/-