Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/94/2021

Kelo Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Fatehabad Central Cooperative Bank Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajbir Singh

01 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.94  of  2021.                                                              Date of Instt.:  30.03.2021.                                                                        Date of Decision: 01.09.2023.

Smt.Kelo Devi widow of Dharampal Singh son of Sandokh Ram resident of village Gorakhpur Sub Tehsil Bhuna Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1. The Fatehabad Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Opposite M.M.College, G.T.Road, Fatehabad through its General Manager.
2. Branch Manager, The Fatehabad Central Cooperative Bank Limited Office, Gorakhpur Sub Tehsil Bhuna & District Fatehabad.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                   Sh.Rajbeer Singh Advocate for complainant.                                            Sh.Vinod Madan, Advocate for Ops.        

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                  

 

ORDER

DR.K.S.NIRANIA,MEMBER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint with the submissions that husband of the complainant namely Shri Dharampal was the employed with the Gorakhpur Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society as he had joined there as Clerk          in August, 1994; that the complainant is having her account No.002934001100284 with Op No.2 and her husband died on 04.02.2019 during his service tenure; that her husband was having account bearing No.002934001000037/INR Service Outlet No.0029 and she was nominee in respect of that account; that there used to be deductions from the account of her husband towards SMS Charges, Pardhan Mantri Jeeval Bima Yojna, and ATM charges etc.; that after the death of her husband, the complainant  had submitted the forms for getting benefits of insurance  which were released on 06.07.2019 after due verification; that after the death of Dharmpal, the Ops kept on deducting amounts on various dates in respect of SMS Alert and PMJBY renewal etc.; that the said account was finally closed  on 01.01.2021; that deduction of amounts after the death of account holder Dharampal clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops as the fact regarding his death was in the knowledge of Ops because the death benefits were released to the complainant after due verification. Hence, this complaint.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C3.

2.                                Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi and estoppal maintainability etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that the husband of the complainant had subscribed the scheme of PMJJBY and PMSBY through nationalised and private banks for which bank account was mandatory; that Op No.2 was directed by the account holder to activate the auto debit option of premium as subscription of the scheme; that the claim regarding death of Dharmpal was to be settled by the insurance companies being related matter between account holder & insurance company; that the death claim had been settled by the insurance company on 06.07.2019; that the charges regarding SMS alert & ATM charges were charged till the closure of the account and on the request of the complainant the account was closed on 01.01.2021, therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the replying OPs.  Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the compliant has been made. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. No evidence on behalf of the Ops has been led and the same was closed by the Commission vide its order dated 12.06.2023. However, learned counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 made a statement for treating the reply filed on behalf of Ops as their evidence.

3.                          We have heard oral final arguments from both sides and perused the case file minutely.

4.                          Undisputedly, the husband of the complainant was employee in The Gorakhpur Primary Agriculture Cooperative society, Gorakhpur and was having account Op no.2 (Annexure C2). It is also not disputed that account holder Dharmpal died on 04.02.2019 (Annexure C1) and the fact regarding receiving of insurance claim benefit by the complainant on account of death of Dharmpal is also not disputed (Annexure C3).

5.                          The grievance of the complainant is that despite the death of account holder, the Ops kept on deducting the amount from the account of deceased on various counts in-spite of having knowledge about the death of Dharmpal. On the other hand, the Ops have come with the plea that the deceased had availed subscription of PMJJBY & PMSBY with auto debit option qua deduction of premium which remained continue till the closure of the account on 01.01.2021.

6.                          The Ops have specifically mentioned in the reply that the deceased had availed subscription of PMJJBY & PMSBY with auto debit option qua deduction of premium which remained continue till the closure of the account on 01.01.2021 but there is nothing on the case file to show that the deceased had ever chosen the auto debit facility qua the deduction of premium of alleged subscribed services and even the Ops did not bother to lead evidence to strengthen the pleas taken in the reply. The complainant and her deceased husband were having their separate accounts with Ops and the fact regarding receiving of insurance claim, qua the death of Dharampal, by the complainant in her account, maintained with Op No.1, on 06.07.2019 is not disputed, therefore, it can be easily presumed that the fact with respect to death of Dharampal was in the knowledge of Ops but despite that they kept on deducting the amount on the name of subscriptions which were allegedly obtained by the deceased, during his life time. The Ops in their reply have mentioned that the account was closed on 01.01.2021 when the complainant herself approached them but there is nothing on the case file to show that as to on which date the complainant has approached the Ops and requested for closing the said account.  The act and conduct and the versions made by the Ops in their reply appears to be not plausible and due to the inaction on the part of Ops, the complainant has not only suffered financial loss but also suffered mental agony and harassment, therefore, the present complaint deserves acceptance.

7.                          Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint with a direction to Ops to refund the amount, which was deducted after the death of Dharampal till the closure of his account on 01.01.2021, from the account of deceased on account of subscription allegedly obtained by him during his life time alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization. The Ops also directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. The liability of the Ops would be joint and several qua the awarded amount. The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the entire amount would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of this compliant till actual payment.      

8.                          In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 01.09.2023

 

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                       (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                              Member                               Member                                             President