BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF OCTOBER 2024
PRESENT
SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA .C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 374/2013
Sri D.S. Siddanna, S/o Late Somashekharappa, Aged about 57 years, Business, R/o D.No.407, ‘Shata Tara’, Sri S.N. Layout, Ring Road, Davanagere 577 004. (By Sri Nagaraj Gujjar, Advocate) | … Appellant/s |
V/s
The Manager, State Bank of India, Akka Mahadevi Road Branch, P.J. Extension, Davanagere 577 002. (By Sri H.N. Vasanth Kumar, Advocate) | ... Respondent/s |
ORDER
SMT. SUNITA .C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER
The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.20.02.2013 passed in CC.No.121/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Davanagere.
2. The crux the complaint is as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he has SB account bearing No.01190013289 in the Opposite Party bank. The complainant joined the “Super Suraksha of SBI Life Insurance” Scheme introduced by the Opposite Party bank in the year 2004 and gave standing instruction to debit Rs.600/- to his SB account every year. The Opposite Party was debiting Rs.600/- to his account every year, the same was not debited in the year 2010 which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.
3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party bank entered appearance and filed version admitting that the complainant is the SB account holder. Further contended that Rs.600/- was not debited to the SB account of the complainant in the year 2010, because the scheme was withdrawn by SBI Life Insurance with effect from 31.10.2009, that as the scheme was not in force, no deficiency in service was committed. It is further alleged by the Opposite Party bank that the complainant had approached Banking Ombudsmen of Karnataka and his claim was rejected. It is further contended that the complaint is barred by limitation, hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/ complainant is in appeal. Heard the arguments of respondent.
5. Perused the appeal memo and Order passed by the District Commission. We noticed that it is not in dispute that the appellant is the SB Account Holder of respondent bank. It is also not in dispute that in the year 2004 ‘Super Suraksha Scheme’ was introduced under which account holder was entitled insurance benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- by debiting premium of Rs.600/- per year. It is also not in dispute that appellant joined the Scheme in the year 2004 and accordingly the respondent has debited Rs.600/- p.a. from the account of the appellant up to 2009. It is also not in dispute that the amount of Rs.600/- was not debited from the SB account of the appellant in the year 2010.
6. Perused the Order passed by the District Commission. We noticed that the District Commission has dismissed the complaint as the complaint is barred by limitation and also on merits. We agree with the Order passed by the District Commission because it is evident that Ex.A7 dt.26.04.2010 and Ex.A15 the letters by which the appellant was informed by the respondent regarding the closure of the scheme with effect from 31.10.2009. Ex.A.10 also shows that the appellant was informed about the new scheme. If the respondent had informed the appellant about the closure of the earlier scheme, the appellant should have opted for new scheme, hence, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Moreover, the appellant did not argue the imposition of costs of Rs.3,000/- payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund and has failed to convince this Commission how there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent or how he is entitled for the compensation from the respondent. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the Order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
