THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH).
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1500/2018
I Vijay Kumar, No.353, 13th B Cross,
9th B Mai, B-Sector, Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore-560 054.
……….Appellants.
(I Vijay Kumar – In person)
-Versus-
The Branch Manager,
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ld.,
Ground Floor, No.837/1,
Binnamangala, 1st Stage,
Indiranagar, 100 ft road,
Bangalore-560 038.
(By. Sri. V.Venkatachalagowda, Adv.,)
:ORDERS:
BY SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI - LADY MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the order dated:02.08.2018 passed by Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.544/2016.
2. The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and Opposite Party respectively as per their rankings before the District Commission.
3. The brief facts of the complaint is that:-
The complainant is the account holder of Kotak Mahindra Bank, with account No.3911500768 and Customer ID is 81003934. Without the notice and consent of the complainant, the bank has deducted the amount of the complainant and done two insurance policies dated:01.06.2015 for a premium of Rs.330/- towards Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyothi Bima Yojna(PMJJBY), another one is dated:02.06.2015 with Rs.12/- premium in Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY).
3(a) The complainant further submitted that he has communicated several times with the bank through mail regarding these transactions, but there was no response and they did not revert the deducted amount and in the month of November -2015 again complainant written a complaint and visited the bank, but Opposite Party refused to take written complaint and they suggested the complainant to contact his company Hr Manager, but the deduction was done after crediting the salary.
3(b) The complainant further submitted that he did not communicate with anyone for any insurance policies or insurance bonds and the insurance policy numbers are not provided to the complainant. The Banker himself has done this illegally without the knowledge of the complainant. Again in the month of April 2016 complainant sent written complaint through registered post to revert the unauthorized deduction amount, thereafter someone called him over the phone from the branch and said the amount never revert. Hence, the complaint.
4. The Opposite Party appeared through his counsel and submitted his written version contending that the complainant has suppressed the material facts that he was an employee of Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, a group of company of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, with the designation of Recruitment Development Manager, in the course of his said employment all the employees of Kotak Mahindra Bank and its group companies were intimated by its Joint Managing Director Sri.Dipak Gupta that they would all be enrolled/subscribed under the policies of Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyothi Bima Yojana and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana.
4(a) The Opposite Party further contended that if any employee who did not want to enroll for the said policies, were required to out of it on or before 20th May 2015. The complainant who received the aforesaid proposal did not choose to opt out within the time period of 20th May 2015 for the reasons best known to him and hence submits there is no deficiency of service on their side and prays to dismiss the complaint.
5. After trail, the II Additional District Commission, Bangalore dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant is in appeal on various grounds.
6. Heard arguments from both sides.
7. Perused the appeal memo and order passed by the II Additional District Commission, Bangalore, we noticed that the respondent/Opposite Party has admitted that complainant is the account holder of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., with account No.3911500768 and customer ID No.81003934.
8. The only contention of the appellant/complainant is that without the notice or consent of the complainant, the bank has deducted the amount of complainant and done two insurance policies dated:01.06.2015 for a premium of Rs.330/- towards Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyothi Bima Yojana (PMJJBY) and another is dated:02.06.2015 for a premium of Rs.12/- towards Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna (PMSBY) and after several communication through ‘e’ mails, there was no any response from the Opposite Party/respondent and the respondent did not revert the deducted amount to the complainant.
9. We all know that Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyothi Bima Yojana (PMJJBY) is yearly renewable term insurable policy launched by the Central Government of India with an object to encourage insurance protection for poor and low income section of the Society with an annual life coverage of Rs.2,00,000/- in case demise of policy holder during policy term and it is lowest premium of Rs.330/- PA. The another policy is Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna (PMSBY), wherein the risk coverage under the scheme is Rs.2 Lakh for accidental death and full disability and Rs.1 Lakh for partial disability. In both these policies, the payment mode of premium is Auto-debited from the S.B. Account of subscribers. This is only way to pay the premium of the policies. If the policy holder wants to discontinue the scheme, then this policy holder needs to submit the cancellation application to stop the deduction of premium payment.
10. In the present case, the complainant was an employee of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited with a designation of Recruitment Development Manager and for the benefit of the Employees, the Joint Managing Director Sri. Dipak Gupta would enrolled all Employees under the above two policies on good faith and it was also notified that any Employee who do not want to enroll for the said policies were required to opt out on or before 20th May 2015. However, the complainant did not choose to opt out within the prescribed time. Both the policies are launched by the Government of India which are renewable yearly and hence, the amount has not been appropriated by by the Opposite Party/bank and that amount helps to build social security system for India. The complainant has no right to claim the deducted amount as because he has not given any representation to his Employer within the stipulated time fixed by the Employer stating that he has not willing to opt those two polices. Hence, in our opinion, the amount which was deducted from the account of the complainant towards two policies cannot be refundable.
11. It is seen that the complainant preferred this appeal to revert the amount deducted under the two polices. But as per the discussion made above, the complainant is not entitled whatever the amount deducted till now towards the said two policies as because these two policies are yearly renewable policies launched by Government of India with an object to encourage insurance protection for poor and low income section of society with a lowest premium and these two premiums helps to build a social security system for India.
12. If the complainant do not want to continue with the above two polices in future, the Opposite Party is directed to stop deduction of the payment of Rs.330/- towards Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyothi Bima Yojna (PMJJBY) and Rs.12/- towards Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna (PMSBY), after receiving a letter from the complainant in that regard. Accordingly,
:ORDER:
The appeal is disposed-off with a modification as under:-
If the complainant do not want to continue with the above two polices in future, the Opposite Party is directed to stop deduction of the payment of Rs.330/- towards Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyothi Bima Yojna (PMJJBY) and Rs.12/- towards Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna (PMSBY), after receiving a letter from the complainant in that regard.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
