Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. This consumer complaint is filed by the complainant named above alleging negligence, deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of ops for non release of insurance benefit under PMJJBY.
2. The facts of the complaint in brief are that:- the complainant and his mother has a joint SB Account at the OP 2 /Bank . In the month of November 2020 one SHG group came to the village of complainant and asked them to get themselves insured under   Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana(PMJJBY) with the link of their bank account  to get various benefits  of the scheme. On dt.04.11.2020 the complainant went to OP 2/ Bank with his mother and requested the concerned staff of the Bank to get themselves insured under PMJJBY Scheme accordingly, the concerned staff gave them one proposal form of PMJJBY Scheme asked them to fill up the same and to deposit a sum of Rs.350/- towards premium in their afore said account which shall be deducted directly from their Bank account for activation of the insurance under PMJJBY. The complainant and his mother acted upon as per the instruction of the OP 2/Bank staff and got insured themselves under PMJJBY Scheme. Unfortunately, the mother of the complainant/co-account holder died on dt.04.05.2021. The complainant visited the OP 2/Bank on 25.05.2021 and informed the concerned staff about the sad demise of his insured mother and requested them for taking initiation to  release  the assured insurance benefit of Rs.2(two) Lakhs under PMJJY. The concern staff asked the complainant to submit certain documents including the death certificate of his mother/co-accountholder. The complainant has complied with all the formalities as instructed by the OP 2/Bank and after completion of all the formalities the OP2/ Bank assured the complainant to get release of the assured benefit under PMJJBY. Time and again the complainant visited the OP2/ Bank to know about his claim who had been assuring release of insurance benefit to the complainant but on 08.11.2021 the OP 2/bank  expressed his inability to approve his claim  on the ground that, his premium amount could not be debited from his account towards insurance under PMJJBY which caused the complainant  mental agony and great  loss of insurance benefit . Hence, this complaint alleging negligence, deficiency in services & unfair trade practice there on the part of Ops.
3. The complainant prayed for the following relief(s):- (i) to direct the Ops to pay the claim amount  of Rs. 2,00,000/- there under PMJJBY within a stipulated period  with additional interest @ 18% per annum,(ii) to direct the Ops to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards the cost & compensation, mental harassment, advocate fees and cost of litigation,(iii) pass any other relief/reliefs  as this Hon’ble Commission  may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
4. To substantiate his claim the complainant has filed the following documents:-(i) Original Pass book vide SB  A/C No. 1693217 1000637 there in the joint name Sanjaya Kumar Durga(complainant) & Rukuni Durga (mother of the complainant) with the Oriental Bank of Commerce(now amalgamated with PNB) , (ii) Original Pass book of same account vide SB  A/C No. 1693217 1000637 there in the joint name Sanjaya Kumar Durga & Rukuni Durga with the Punjab National Bank issued on 06/07/2021,(ii) True Copy of Death Certificate of Rukmani Durga(mother of the complainant),(iii) Copy of Aadhar Card of Rukmani Durga ,the mother of the complainant (iv) True Copy of money deposit receipt of  Rs.350/- with OP2/Bank dt.04.11.2020. So also the complainant averment is supported by an affidavit of the complainant.
5. On being notice, the Opposite Parties No.1(one) & 2(two) appeared through their Learned Counsel Shri Sachidananta Sahu  but failed to file their written version  within the stipulated period of time as prescribed under C.P.Act,2019 .The written version filed in a belated stage is not accepted  in view of order dt.04.03.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Ltd. However, Ops are allowed to take part in the hearing & further proceeding of this case without written version.
6. The Op 3(three) did not appear though notice through registered post is properly served.
7. Heard. Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced by the learn counsel of the parties present.
8. During hearing of this complaint the Opp.Parties No 2(two) filed their evidence affidavit of one Sri. Udaya Shankar ,the Branch manager OP 2/Bank ,Bhawanipatna, stating there in that :- as per record available at the Bank, one Savings account was opened in the name of Sanjaya Kumar Duarga  on dt.21.08.2012  and the documents furnished for KYC verification shows that, the date of birth of the complainant is 20.06.1997 represented through his mother Rukmani Durga being the complainant is a minor at the time of opening account and that, the complainant after attaining the majority has not furnished any documents for KYC verification till today.  As per record the office bearer of Oriental Bank of Commerce has not received any proposal form of Rukmani Durga under PMJJBY Scheme where as the account holder is solely the complainant Sanjaya Durga  for that any other person other than the complainant, under the Scheme PMJJBY is not applicable , apart from this no premium, towards insurance was deducted from the account of the complainant .  Under the PMJJBY scheme other than the account holder is not eligible for insurance claim and the claim of the complainant is not true and genuine and as such the question of unfair trade practice does not arise and there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the OP Bank.
9. Law is well settled that, in absence of pleading, evidence if any, produced by parties cannot be considered. No party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleadings.(AIR 2014  SC 1290) .As such the evidence affidavit of Op 2/Bank is not  acceptable & cannot be  taken in to consideration .
10.  Here the doctrine of non –traverse will rightly applicable as non of the allegation made by the complainant are ever disputed or traversed by the O.P in any manner .The opposite party have neither    disputed nor produce any evidence admissible contrary to the averment of the complainant which in terms is a clear admission of facts of the complaint and the same need not proved as per Sec 58 of Indian evidence Act. Law is well settled that  every allegation of facts in the complaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication , or stated to be admitted in the pleading of the O.P shall be taken to be admitted accept as against a person disability . Where the O.p has not filed a pleading it shall be law full for the court to pronounced judgment on the basic of the fact contend in the plaint except as against the person under a disability (Reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in  M.Venkataramana Hebbar Vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Others, Lohia Properties (P) Ltd Vs. Atmaram Kumar).
11. However, Section 38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 costs an obligation on the District Commission to decide a complaint on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider, irrespective of whether the service provider adduced evidence or not the decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. Thus, onus through is on the complainant making allegation.
12. During hearing of this case the complainant filed his evidence on affidavit. The complainant has proved his contention by adducing  his evidence on affidavit as prescribed under C.P.Act,2019,contents of which are corroborating with the averment of complaint petition remain un- rebutted.
13. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the both the parties and have examined the record. It is proved on affidavit of the complainant that , complainant along with his mother have a joint account with OP2/the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhawanipatna (now it is merged with Punjab National Bank ,Bhawanipatna ) and that , the complainant has deposited Rs 350/- on dt.04.11.2020 in his account at OP2/Bank towards premium along with duly field up form for insurance under PMJJBY  during 2020 -21 and that ,  account holder Rukmani Durga died on 04.05.2021 while PMJJBY is in force  and that, the complainant on dt. 25.05.2021 informed the staff of the OP 2/Bank who assured the complainant falsely to get released of insurance benefit under PMJJBY time & again but lastly denied insurance benefit to the complainant as such we are of the opinion that, there  sufficient cause of action against the Ops to present this complaint.
14. This complaint is presented on 25.11.2021 when the OP/Bank on dt.08.11.2021 refused to get release of insurance claim of the complainant under PMJJBY    as such this complaint is well presented within the stipulated period of time as prescribed under C.P. Act 2019.The complainant is residing within the district of Kalahandi as such this complaint is found well within the jurisdiction of this Commission maintainable under the C.P.Act 2019. In absence of any cogent evidence the preliminary objection raised by the Ops that, the complaint is barred by limitation, principal of estoppels, waiver, acquiescence, non joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party is hereby rejected.
15. Nothing cogent evidence is adduced by the Op/Bank to hold that the Op2/Bank has maintained any register containing the name of  person/account holder  who has submitted the proposal form to get insured under PMJJBY and that, the name of the deceased mother of the complainant is not placed there in the said register .So also nothing cogent materials is placed on the record to hold that the Op 2/Bank, as a rule ,has issued acknowledgement to its account holder on receiving Proposal Form for insurance under PMJJBY. Rather, the complainant has proved that he has deposited Rs 350/- with OP2/Bank on dt.04.11.2020.The true Copy of money receipt on deposit of Rs.350/- with OP2/Bank on dt.04.11.2020 remains unchallenged.
16. We are of the opinion that, receiving premium from the account holder along with duly filled  up  Form for insurance of the mother of the complainant, who is one of the   joint account holder vide A/C No. 1693217 1000637 there in the joint name of Sanjaya Kumar Durga & Rukuni Durga with the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhawanipatna (now amalgamated with  Punjab National Bank, Bhawanipatna ), under PMJJBY and non remittance of the premium  to the concern Insurance Company is certainly an act of negligence & deficient service there on the part of the Op 2/Bank no doubt caused frustration of the PMJJBY  .The complainant has lost his entitlement of  insurance benefit of Rs 2,00,000/- accrued on dt.04.05.2021 under PMJJBY on account of the death of his mother /joint account holder only because of the  negligence &  deficient services of OP 2/Bank is proved which  certainly caused mental agony to the complainant cannot be denied as such  we are of the opinion that the OPs  2(two) is liable to compensate the complainant.
17. Remittance of insurance premium under PMJJBY is certainly beyond the control of the insured/account holder, the account holder is no way concerned with this rather it is the business of the OP.NO 2(two) who is working under Op 1(one). It is found that, the employees of the OP. No. 2(two) did not care to prompt remittance of insurance premium collected from the account holder under PMJJBY , the OP. No 2 being an employer cannot escape   its vicarious liability for the acts of its employee .The aforesaid conduct of  the OP 2/Bank clearly proved their  negligence & deficient service which frustrated  the very purpose of PMJJBY  meant for the poor citizen is a great concern certainly caused financial lose & mental agony to the complainant need to be compensated  with heavy punitive damages not less than 2(two) lakh. So that the Op shall not do such negligence with any other account holder .Reliance   may placed on the judgment dt. 12.08.2015 passed by the Honourable National Commission in Punjab National Bank & ANR. Vs. Hari Ram Yadev In Revision Petition No 1923 of 2015 which is also followed while deciding the Revision Petition No 753 of 2018 in Panjab National Bank Vs. Daljeet Singh decided on 19.01.2021 by the Honorable National Commission reported in 2021 NCJ 163(NC) where it is concluded that, bank cannot escape its vicarious liability for the acts of its employee.
18. The Op 2(two) is functioning under Op 1(one)  is not disputed as such both the Op 1(one) & 2(two) are jointly & severely liable to compensate the complainant. However, the claim of the complainant is of higher side as such allowed in part. Hence it is order.

O R D E R

This complaint is allowed in part against the Op 1 & 2 on contest and dismissed against the Op 3 with following directions:-

1. The Opposite Party No. 1(one) & 2(two) are directed to pay compensation of Rs .2,00,000/-(two lakh) with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filling of this complaint i .e from dt. 25.11.2021 to the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000 towards litigation cost to the complainant  ,
2. Further, both the Ops No 1(one) & 2(two) are directed to pay    Rs. 2,00,000/ (two Lakh ) jointly to the Consumer Welfare Fund, Odisha as punitive damages ,
3. it is further directed that, the aforesaid awarded amount is to be paid  by the respective Ops within four weeks from the date of receipt of the  copy of this order falling which  said awarded amount shall attract interest @ 18 % p. a till its  actual payment .

  Dictated & corrected by me.

     Sd/-

     President.      

                          I agree.

            Sd/-                                  

  Member.

 Pronounced in open forum today on this 4^th  day of  April 2024  under the seal and signature of this Commission .

 The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

 Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order receipt from this Commission. Order accordingly.