KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO. 268/13

                               JUDGMENT  DATED:22.07.2014

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                                         : MEMBER

SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR                             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

M/o Late Premjith,

Thottupurath House,

Manari Road, Thiruvannur.P.O,                          : APPELLANT

Kozhikkode.

(By Adv: Sri.Jayakrishnan.R)

            Vs.

The Branch Manager,

HDFC Bank, Nadakkavu,                                     : RESPONDENT

Kozhikkode-673 011.

(By Adv: Sri.T.L. Sreeram)

                               JUDGMENT 

SMT. A. RADHA         : MEMBER

Appellant is the complainant who preferred this appeal against the dismissal order in CC.No.501/09 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode.

2.      The complainant is the mother of the deceased who was a Golden Debit Card holder of the opposite party.  The card assured and guaranteed personal accident death cover of Rs.5,00,000/-.  The complainant’s son died on 28.03.2009 in an accident. Though the complainant approached the opposite party several times the opposite party denied the benefit assured under the scheme.  Hence filed this complaint.

3.      The opposite party filed version admitting that the complainant’s son was a Golden Debit Card holder of opposite party.  The opposite party informed the complainant that she is not eligible to claim the amount under the Golden Debit Card Holder scheme as the card holder had never activated the card.  The essential precedent for claiming the benefit is that every account holder should activate the debit card as per the scheme.  A welcome kit was provided along with the card containing cheque book and the terms and conditions.  The specific stipulation for activation of the card should be done and it should be swiped at least once for a purchase transaction.  This was not complied by the complainant’s son and he is not eligible for the benefits under the scheme.  Hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay the benefit to the complainant and the complaint is only to be dismissed.

4.      The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A6, Ext.B1 on the part of opposite party.  As per the terms and conditions of the Golden Debit Card Holder scheme the card holder should have carried out at least one purchase transaction at a merchant establishment using the debit card in the previous six months before the month of the accident.  Complainant’s son had not purchased using the debit card. The Forum below came to a conclusion that the complainant is not eligible for the scheme and dismissed the complaint.  This was challenged in appeal.

5.      The counsel for the appellant submitted that the opposite party ignored the request made by the complainant and the act of the opposite party shows negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The counsel vehemently argued that the complainant was issued the card with A/c No.06711000018457 where as the complainant’s son died on 28.03.2009 and there had 3 months more to complete six months as envisaged under the clause (iii) of the terms and conditions of the scheme.  The complainant is eligible for the death benefit as three more months were ahead and he also prayed for extending the non standard basis in allowing the claim based on the case of Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC).  In violation of terms of policy the non standard basis is to be adopted for settlement of the insurance scheme, so the complainant is eligible for 75% of the Golden Debit Card Hold Scheme.

6.      The respondent’s counsel argued that the scheme is based on the terms and conditions.  It is a contractual benefit for the merchant establishment wherein clear stipulation of clause (iii) is to be followed in this case.  Complainant had not used the card or purchased or activated the Golden Card and also objected the payment of conditional payment under non standard basis.

7.      We have heard both the parties in detail and we are of the considered view that the contract is based on the terms and conditions of the scheme and as per the golden card scheme the complainant’s son had not activated the card for any purchase or used the card. The first condition is the activation of the card and one purchase is to be done through the card then only the benefit accrues to the card holder which was not satisfied by the card holder. In the said circumstances the claim made by the complainant cannot be entertained and appeal is to be dismissed and complaint is also dismissed.

In the result, appeal is dismissed and complaint is also dismissed.

A copy of this order is to be sent to the Forum Below with LCR.

A. RADHA          : MEMBER

VL.

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER