BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
PRESENT: SRI P.V.SUBRAHMANYAM, B.A,B.L., PRESIDENT.
SMT U.SUNITA, M.A., LADY MEMBER.
SRI MEKALA NARSIMHAREDDY, M.A,LL.B.,P.G.D.C.P.L
MALE MEMBER.
Friday, the 3rd day of April, 2009
CC.NO.44/2008
Between:
1. Yekhalli Shanker Rao S/o Veerappa,
Aged 58 years, Occ: Retired Pvt. Employee.
2. Yekhalli Susheela Bai W/o Shanker Rao,
Aged 52 years, Occ: Housewife,
Both are R/o Morgi(v), Manoor(M), Medak Dist.
… complainant.
And
1. The H.D.F.C Bank, Card Division,
P.O. Box No. 399, Anna Salai, PO Chennai 600002 (T.N.).
2. The H.D.F.C. Bank, Main Road, Sangareddy.
… Opposite parties.
This case came up for final hearing before us on 25.03.2009 in the presence of Sri. Ch. Baswaraj, Advocate for complainant and the opposite parties remained absent, upon hearing the arguments of complainant’s advocate, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following.
O R D E R
( Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct opposite parties to pay insurance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of complaint and further to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
-2-
The contents of complaint in brief are as follows:-
1). The complainants belong to Morgi village of Manoor Mandal, Medak District. Their son Yekhalli Shiv Kumar worked as area manager in Dr. Reddy Laboratories at Puna Branch. He was holding HDFC bank International gold card membership bearing No. 5176 5210 0545 4600 which is valid from 08/07 to 09/10 with Puna branch. He died in road accident on 3.05.2008 near Dharwad district of Karnataka State for which Garg Police Station registered a case in crime No. 66/2008 U/s 279, 338 and 304A IPC. Opposite party No. 1 issued a booklet of international gold card covering insurance, where in it is stated that if the member of international gold card of HDFC bank dies in road accident the nominees of the card holders are entitled to get Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. After the death of the card holder Yekhalli Shiv Kumar, the complainants approached opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and their branches situated at Puna, Bidar, Sangareddy and Hyderabad and requested for payment of compensation amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, as their son died in motor accident while holding the international gold card of their bank. All of them refused to pay. There upon the complainants verified the booklet issued by the opposite parties and came to know from page 32 that there was a tie up agreement between the opposite party No. 1 and insurance company. Immediately the complainants got a legal notice dt.18.07.2008 issued to opposite party No. 1 to known the mane of the insurance company and to further know the particulars of the policy for making it a party to this proceedings. Along with the notice, copies of FIR, gold card and booklet were sent for perusal. Opposite party No. 1 received the notice but there has been neither compliance nor a reply. The attitude of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 amounts to deficiency in service. As the branch office of opposite party No. 1 is located in Sangareddy, which is opposite party No. 2, this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As such opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amounts to the complainant as claimed in the complainant. Hence the complaint.
2) Notice was sent to opposite party No. 1 through registered post. It is deemed that opposite party No. 1 received notice. Opposite party No. 2 received notice. But they have not chosen to participate in the proceedings. Evidence affidavit of first complainant is filed on his behalf and on behalf of his wife, the second complainant to prove the contents of the complaint. Exs. A1 to A7 documents are marked on behalf of the complainants. No written arguments are filed for the complainants, however oral arguments are advanced. Perused the record.
-3-
3). The point for consideration whether the complainants proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and that they are entitled for the various amounts claimed in the complaint?
Point:
4). The complainants’ case is that their son by name Shiv Kumar while working as area manager in Dr. Reddy Laboratories at Puna has taken international gold card membership from HDFC bank at Puna which is valid from August/2007 to Septermber/2010 but unfortunately died in a road accident on 3.05.2008 in Dharwad district in Karnataka State and in that connection Garg Police registered a case against the driver of Indica car bearing No. MH 14 BC 2546 by name Anand Salke. The son of complainants Mr. Shiv Kumar who was holding the HDFC international gold card died on the spot while traveling in that car, along with others-(Ex.A3) The complainants say that when they claimed for the assured amount from the opposite parties and their branches, at Puna, Bidar and Hyderabad but they refused to pay the amount.
5). The opposite parties have not chosen to participate in the proceedings. At page 8 of the booklet which is marked as Ex.A2 it is clearly mentioned that for death in a road accident the nominated next of kin of the card holder will receive a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. At page 32 of the same booklet it is mentioned under the head Personal Accident Policy” as “All Primary Card members of the Bank are covered for death due to road/rail/air accident”. It is also mentioned under the same head at page 32 of Ex. A2 as “For HDFC Bank Gold International Card, the cover is Rs. 3 lacs for death due to road/rail accident and Rs.25 lacs for death due to air accident”.
6) The complainants have not produced any document to show that they are nominated by their son, the card holder Mr. Shiv Kumar, to receive the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the event of his death in a road accident. Further the complainants have not stated whether their son Mr. Shiv Kumar was married or single, if married whether he had wife and children to receive the amount. On a reading of the complaint and the evidence affidavit of the first complainant there is
-4-
no whisper any where that Mr. Shiv Kumar was married and he was having wife and children at the time of his death, to share the amount. As the complainants stated that they are nominees to receive the amount, even though there is no proof to show that they are nominees, as the opposite parties have not chosen to contest the matter, it is deemed that the version of the complainants that they are nominees and that they are entitled to receive the amount is not disputed by the opposite parties.
7) The complainants marked the international gold card of HDFC bank of their son as Ex.A1. Certified copy of FIR in Karnataka language and its English translation are marked as Ex.A3. Ex.A4 is the office copy of the lawyer notice issued on behalf of the complainants to opposite party No. 1. Ex. A5 is postal acknowledgement in evidence of receipt of Ex. A4 notice by opposite party No. 1. Ex.A6 is postal registration receipt under which Ex. A4 notice was sent. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the complainants referred to Ex. A7, which is “Sakshi” a Telugu daily news paper, where in according to him a news item is published that in a similar case Hon’ble State Commission of Andhra Pradesh awarded insurance amount and costs. Ex.A7 does not contain case number in which the Hon’ble State Commission rendered the said decision. Even otherwise a news item cannot be taken as evidence to reply upon Ex. A7, therefore it has no evidentiary value.
8) It is not in dispute that the complainants’ son Mr. Shiv Kumar had taken international gold card from HDFC bank at Puna. It is stated by the counsel for the complainants that its head office is at Chennai which is opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 received lawyer notice. Notice was sent in this case by this forum through registered post. Opposite party No. 2 has received notice through local tappal. The complainant is entitled to file the complaint in this forum, as branch office of HDFC bank (which is opposite party No. 2) is located in Sangareddy which confers jurisdictions U/s 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, In view of the discussion supra it is held that the complainants are entitled to Rs. 3,00,000/- towards insurance and to compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and also further entitled to Rs. 2,000/- towards costs. As opposite party No. 1 failed to furnish the name and other particulars of the insurance company with which it has tie up, opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amounts to the complainants. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 may proceed against the insurance company with which it has tie up, to recover the amount, if they are entitled and advised so. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainants.
-5-
9) In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to pay to the complainants the Rs. 3,00,000/- payable under the international gold card with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment as requested in the complaint and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs within one month from the date of this order. Their liability is joint and several. The complainants and directed to file legal heir certificate before filing cheque petition, to show that they are the only legal heirs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this the 3rd day of April, 2009
Sd/- **** ****
President Lady Member MaleMember
Sd/- President
Copy to:
1) The Complainant
2) The Opp.Parties
3) Spare copy copy delivered to the Complainant/
Opp.Parties On ___________
Dis.No. /2009, dt.
