The Manager, standard and Chartered Bank V/S Smt. Rund sangma - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2311

Smt. Rund sangma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, standard and Chartered Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Nagabhushana

13 Nov 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2311

Smt. Rund sangma						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Manager, standard and Chartered Bank						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 28.10.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 31st DECEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2311/2008 COMPLAINANTS 1. Smt. Rumi Sangma, W/o. Late Sri. K.P. Manoharan, Aged about 49 years, 2. Miss Megha Sangma, Aged about 21 years, 3. Baby Prerana Sangma, Aged about 8 years, 2 and 3 are daughters of late Sri. K.P. Manoharan, & 3 is minor, represented by mother & natural guardian Rumi Sangma, all residing at No.397, I Phase, 4th Stage, Vijayanagar, Mysore 570 017. Advocate (M.G. Nagabhushana) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager, Standard & Chartered Bank, P.O. Box 5199, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (Keshava Bhat) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim on the basis of the credit card and pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant No.1 is the wife of one K.P. Manoharan. Complainant No.2 and 3 are the daughters of complainant No.1. The said K.P. Manoharan had the gold credit card issued by the OP which carried inbuilt personal accident insurance. K.P. Manoharan met with a road accident on 27.05.2004, later on succumbed to the injuries leaving behind the complainant as his sole heirs. After the death of K.P. Manoharan complainants did approach the OP to pay the personal accident benefits covered under the insurance policy by Oriental Insurance Company. Though complainants made several requests and demands by producing all the necessary documents, it went in vain. Complainant got issued the legal notice on 25.03.2008. Again there was no response. For no fault of theirs, they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances they felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP it was a credit card insurance and as on the date of death of K.P. Manoharan the said credit card was not inforce it was invalidated on 07.05.2004 itself due to the non-payment of the dues of Rs.35,689/-. The death of the K.P. Manoharan was not brought to the notice of OP immediately. OP got insured the gold card holders against the personal accident insurance with Oriental Insurance Company. Complainants have not made the said Insurance Company as a party in this complaint. At the time of death of the K.P. Manoharan in pursuance of the said credit card transaction he was actually in due of more than Rs.1,77,523/-. Complainants have not made any claim to the OP on 02.03.2005 as contended. This complaint is filed after lapse of 2½ years, hence it is barred by limitation. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. OP has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said credit card. When the card itself was not inforce at the time of death of K.P. Manoharan, complainants are not entitled for the relief claimed. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the one K.P. Manoharan a businessman has taken gold credit card from OP which had inbuilt personal accident insurance covered by Oriental Insurance Company. Of course complainant No.1 is the wife, complainant No.2 and 3 are the children of the said K.P. Manoharan. According to the complainants K.P. Manoharan met with an accident on 27.05.2004 and later on 16.07.2004 he succumbed to the injuries leaving behind these complainants as his legal heirs. After the death of K.P. Manoharan complainants have made claim to OP to settle the insurance, but their repeated requests and demands went in futile. Hence they felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. According to the complainants they wrote a letter for the first time seeking settlement of a claim on 02.03.2005. What made them to wait for more than 10 months from the date of accident is not known. Much water might have been flown during this delay. Thereafter complainants got issued the legal notice on 25.03.2008 that is nearly after lapse of 3 years from the first claim. For this delay also there is no satisfactory explanation. 7. We find force in the defence of the OP that complainants have not explained the inordinate delay in filing this complaint. There is a carelessness and negligence on the part of the complainants. It is a specific defence of the OP that at the time of death of K.P. Manoharan the said credit card was not in active condition it was invalidated on 07.05.2004 for non-payment of the dues of Rs.35,689/-. The document to that effect is produced. So as on the date of the invalidation of the said card the card holder K.P. Manoharan was very much alive. If K.P. Manoharan would have been prompt in making payment of the necessary charges or the outstanding dues in time probably his heirs would have accrued the rightful benefit. Because of the carelessness, negligence and default on the part of K.P. Manoharan in non-payment of the outstanding dues the credit card stood invalidated. 8. When K.P. Manoharan himself is a defaulter, his heirs the so called beneficiaries cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. Though OP made several demands to the K.P. Manoharan to pay the outstanding dues, it was not paid. A document to that effect is produced. In addition to that though complainants are aware of the fact that Oriental Insurance Company has insured the card holders, it is not made as a party. Of course the complainants have filed a complaint No. 23/07 before the Mysore District Consumer Forum against United India Insurance Company and obtained the decree. It appears on the same line they wanted to claim the compensation in this case also. But unfortunately the fact that the so called gold credit card, on the basis of which they want to raise their claim was not at all inforce when the accident took place or when the death is occurred. 9. It is specifically contended by the OP that the said K.P. Manoharan is in due of Rs.1,77,523/- as on 28.09.2008. A document to that effect is produced. Most probably to avoid the said obligation, complainants must have come up with this complaint. The so called letter dated 02.03.2005 on the basis of which, complainants want to assert the settlement of the claim is not received by the OP. There is no proof that the said letter is actually delivered to the OP to settle the claim. Viewed from any angle, we find the present complaint is devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service, hence the complainants are not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of December 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 28.10.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 31st DECEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2311/2008 COMPLAINANTS 1. Smt. Rumi Sangma, W/o. Late Sri. K.P. Manoharan, Aged about 49 years, 2. Miss Megha Sangma, Aged about 21 years, 3. Baby Prerana Sangma, Aged about 8 years, 2 and 3 are daughters of late Sri. K.P. Manoharan, & 3 is minor, represented by mother & natural guardian Rumi Sangma, all residing at No.397, I Phase, 4th Stage, Vijayanagar, Mysore 570 017. Advocate (M.G. Nagabhushana) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager, Standard & Chartered Bank, P.O. Box 5199, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (Keshava Bhat) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim on the basis of the credit card and pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant No.1 is the wife of one K.P. Manoharan. Complainant No.2 and 3 are the daughters of complainant No.1. The said K.P. Manoharan had the gold credit card issued by the OP which carried inbuilt personal accident insurance. K.P. Manoharan met with a road accident on 27.05.2004, later on succumbed to the injuries leaving behind the complainant as his sole heirs. After the death of K.P. Manoharan complainants did approach the OP to pay the personal accident benefits covered under the insurance policy by Oriental Insurance Company. Though complainants made several requests and demands by producing all the necessary documents, it went in vain. Complainant got issued the legal notice on 25.03.2008. Again there was no response. For no fault of theirs, they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances they felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP it was a credit card insurance and as on the date of death of K.P. Manoharan the said credit card was not inforce it was invalidated on 07.05.2004 itself due to the non-payment of the dues of Rs.35,689/-. The death of the K.P. Manoharan was not brought to the notice of OP immediately. OP got insured the gold card holders against the personal accident insurance with Oriental Insurance Company. Complainants have not made the said Insurance Company as a party in this complaint. At the time of death of the K.P. Manoharan in pursuance of the said credit card transaction he was actually in due of more than Rs.1,77,523/-. Complainants have not made any claim to the OP on 02.03.2005 as contended. This complaint is filed after lapse of 2½ years, hence it is barred by limitation. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. OP has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said credit card. When the card itself was not inforce at the time of death of K.P. Manoharan, complainants are not entitled for the relief claimed. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the one K.P. Manoharan a businessman has taken gold credit card from OP which had inbuilt personal accident insurance covered by Oriental Insurance Company. Of course complainant No.1 is the wife, complainant No.2 and 3 are the children of the said K.P. Manoharan. According to the complainants K.P. Manoharan met with an accident on 27.05.2004 and later on 16.07.2004 he succumbed to the injuries leaving behind these complainants as his legal heirs. After the death of K.P. Manoharan complainants have made claim to OP to settle the insurance, but their repeated requests and demands went in futile. Hence they felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. According to the complainants they wrote a letter for the first time seeking settlement of a claim on 02.03.2005. What made them to wait for more than 10 months from the date of accident is not known. Much water might have been flown during this delay. Thereafter complainants got issued the legal notice on 25.03.2008 that is nearly after lapse of 3 years from the first claim. For this delay also there is no satisfactory explanation. 7. We find force in the defence of the OP that complainants have not explained the inordinate delay in filing this complaint. There is a carelessness and negligence on the part of the complainants. It is a specific defence of the OP that at the time of death of K.P. Manoharan the said credit card was not in active condition it was invalidated on 07.05.2004 for non-payment of the dues of Rs.35,689/-. The document to that effect is produced. So as on the date of the invalidation of the said card the card holder K.P. Manoharan was very much alive. If K.P. Manoharan would have been prompt in making payment of the necessary charges or the outstanding dues in time probably his heirs would have accrued the rightful benefit. Because of the carelessness, negligence and default on the part of K.P. Manoharan in non-payment of the outstanding dues the credit card stood invalidated. 8. When K.P. Manoharan himself is a defaulter, his heirs the so called beneficiaries cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. Though OP made several demands to the K.P. Manoharan to pay the outstanding dues, it was not paid. A document to that effect is produced. In addition to that though complainants are aware of the fact that Oriental Insurance Company has insured the card holders, it is not made as a party. Of course the complainants have filed a complaint No. 23/07 before the Mysore District Consumer Forum against United India Insurance Company and obtained the decree. It appears on the same line they wanted to claim the compensation in this case also. But unfortunately the fact that the so called gold credit card, on the basis of which they want to raise their claim was not at all inforce when the accident took place or when the death is occurred. 9. It is specifically contended by the OP that the said K.P. Manoharan is in due of Rs.1,77,523/- as on 28.09.2008. A document to that effect is produced. Most probably to avoid the said obligation, complainants must have come up with this complaint. The so called letter dated 02.03.2005 on the basis of which, complainants want to assert the settlement of the claim is not received by the OP. There is no proof that the said letter is actually delivered to the OP to settle the claim. Viewed from any angle, we find the present complaint is devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service, hence the complainants are not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of December 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.