Presented by:
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
The instant case has been filed by the present complainant against the O.ps. under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts of the case is that :
The son (since deceased) of the present complainant was the holder of Rupay Card bearing no.6070981066050964 which was valid till 04/2022 in connection with savings bank Account bearing no.588700170000459 with Panjub Natuonal Bank, Bagnan Branch, Howrah-711303. According to the complainant O.p. no.1 runs their Banking business including issuing of Rupay Debit Card to its account holder for withdrawal of cash and also for using the same card before any commercial outlet. O.p. no.2 is the general insurance company and they issued different non-life insurance policy including Rupay Card Holders accidents insurance policy. The complainant’s son met with a road accident on 03/03/2016 by use of vehicle bearing no.WB-15A/5669 on NH-6 at Deulty, Kalimandir, Howrah. According to the complainant, by the date of her only son she was totally shattered and traumatized for which she could not contact with the respective bank within the stipulated period of time for filling up the claim form. On 16/08/2016 the present complainant went to the bank claiming for the accidental death claim of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith all required documents. On 29/08/2016 with an utter surprised O.p. no.1 issued a letter in the name of the complainant’s husband stating inter alia that due to delay of submission of claim beyond the stipulated period of 90 days, the claim on account of the death of the Rupay Debit Card Holder has been rejected. With a devastated condition the complainant on July, 2017 issued a legal notice through her Ld. Advocate upon O.p. no.1 and submitted that the complainant was not given any opportunity to describe the alleged delay in submission of the claim with the O.p. no.1 and that there is no transparency in the claim process of O.p. no.1 while negotiating settlement of claim with O.p. no.2 and that the claim was not submitted at all to the insurance company and prior to that the claim has been rejected by O.p. no.1. As per submission of the complainant, in reply to the said notice dated 06/07/2017 O.p. no.1 asked the complainant to resubmit the documents for settlement of the case afresh which the complainant duly complied but all are in vain and no response has yet been received from O.p. no.1. Having no other alternative, another legal notice was issued by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant to O.p. no.1 demanding Rs.1,00,000/- as accidental death claim alongwith interest @12% per annum with certain other claims. With utter surprise of the present complainant O.p. no.1 sent reply by letter dated 24/04/2018 stating that they have sent the claim to O.p. no.2 on 04/08/2017, but O.p. no.2 has not settled the claim. But neither O.p. no.1 nor O.p. no.2 settled the claim till date for which no other alternative complainant is compelled to file the instant complaint petition with a prayer for direction upon the O.ps. to pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as sum insured for accidental death with interest to the tune of Rs.12% per annum from the death of claim till full realization with a further prayer to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.20,000/- for litigation cost.
DEFENCE CASE:
The O.p. no.1 submitted the written version denying inter alia all material allegations against them. As per submission of O.p. no.1 after receiving the death claim on 16/08/2016 from Somnath Das Gupta they forwarded the said claim alongwith all relevant documents to the Manager, Financial Inclusion Cell, Kolkata for clearance. It is the further submission of O.p. no.1 that he had acted in accordance with direction of Financial Inclusion Cell who by letter dated 20/08/2016 informed that “In accordance with FID circular no.33/2015 dated 08/12/2015, claim intimation should be within 90 days from the date of accident.” As per submission of O.p. no.1 the alleged accident occurred on 03/03/2016 and the claim was made on 16/08/2016 i.e. after the expiry of 90 days. It is the admitted fact that O.p. no.1 asked Somnath Das Gupta to resubmit his claim alongwith relevant documents which he did and this O.p. forwarded the said claim to Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in the form of letter without any delay. According to O.p. no.1 he tried his level best to yield the status of claim on several occasions from New India Assurance Co. Ltd. but till date he has not received any reply from their end. According to the submission of O.p. no.1 as all the correspondences are made by Somnath Das Gupta, the father of the deceased, the present complainant has no locus standi to file this instant case, moreso according to O.p. no.1 the complaint is misconceived, baseless, concocted and false so it is liable to be rejected with exemplary cost.
The O.p.no.2 submitted the written version denying inter-alia all material allegations against them. The specific case of the O.p.no.2 is that, it is an admitted position that the son of the present complainant was a Rupay Card Holder and he died by an accident on 03/03/2016 but the fact remains that the complainant submitted her claim on 16/08/2016. According to O.p. no.2, as per paragraph no.2 of the circular being no.Rupay/2015-16/025 dated 24/11/2015 passed by National Payments Corporation of India, the claim should be made within a period of 90 days from the date of occurrence of the incident but in this particular case the complainant did not comply the circular for which the claim of the complainant cannot be meet up and O.p. no.2 further prays further for rejection of the present complaint petition alongwith exemplary cost.
Evidence on record
The complainant and O.p. no.2 have filed their respective evidence on affidavit, questionnaire and B.N.A. Complainant and O.p. no.2 have filed their B.N.A. which are nothing but replica of complaint, written version and supports the averments of their respective petitions.
O.p. no.1 was restrained from evidence on affidavit vide order no.17 dated 14/12/2022.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the complainant and O.p. no.2
The complainant and O.p. no.2 have filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant and O.p. no.2 shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.
Heard argument of complainant and O.p. no.2 at length. In course of argument Ld. Lawyer of complainant and O.p. no.2 have given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the parties.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1:
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.
Issue no.2:
As complainant and one of the defendants have their address within the district of Howrah and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission, so as per section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, this commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint case. This point thus disposed of accordingly.
ISSUE 3& 4
Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.
The present complainant who is the mother of the deceased filed this complaint rightly being the class-I heir of the deceased as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In the complaint petition, the complainant narrated the entire facts and also clarified the reason for delay in submitting the claim before the appropriate authority (copy of all documents are attached). After perusing all the documents this Commission holds that there was sufficient grounds for non-filing the claim within the stipulated period of time. Moreso, from the documents submitted by the O.ps., it is clear that there is candid admission on their part that they asked the complainant to resubmit her claim to the authority. Had it been the strict rule that claim cannot be placed/admitted after the expiry of stipulated period, they would not ask for the same by serving notice through their Ld. Advocate. We have taken all the exhibits submitted by both sides, perused the documents and of the view that a misfortunate mother, who has lost her son and her state of mind at that point of time would be totally devastating. It may not be possible for such a mother to apply for such claim within time nor to contact with the concerned authority for the same. This Act is a beneficial legislation with an aim and object to provide for the protection of the interests of the consumers. It is a fact that the present complainant tendered after the expiry of the stipulated period of time, however concerning her present state of mind and situation at that particular period of time we feel that on account of ignorance of all the paraphernalia and much more her traumatized situation, she was not able to file her claim within time. We are of the view that one more opportunity must be given to her to place her claim as a special case before the O.ps. and the O.ps. should reprocess and reconsider the claim of the present complaint.
Both the issues are thus disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the Complaint case no.285 of 2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against O.ps.
Complainant is directed to file the claim application alongwith all relevant documents within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the O.ps. and O.ps. are directed to reopen the claim case and pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as sum insured amount for accidental death of the son of the complainant under Insurance Coverage of Rupay Debit Card within 45 days from received of the claim from the complainant.
Complainant do get Rs.20,000/- as mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost from the O.ps. within 45 days from date.
Complainant is at liberty to execute the said order in case of non-compliance by the O.ps. before the appropriate Court of law.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website The word file is drafted and corrected by me.
(Minakshi Chakraborty)
Member
D.C.D.R.C., Howrah
