BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.621 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:            21.10.2014

                                               Date of Decision:           18.03.2015

Poonam wife of Netar Paul and mother of Late Ravi Kumar, resident of House No.4455, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Lalru, Punjab through its authorized signatory.

………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Mrs. Sonia Bansal, Member.

Present:     Shri S.M. Bhatia, counsel for the complainant.

Shri P.S. Sobti, counsel for the OP.

(MRS. MADHU P. SINGH, PRESIDENT)

ORDER

                The case of the complainant is that Ravi Kumar her deceased son purchased a debit card from the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) which was valid upto 03/2018. The card had the facility of insurance upto Rs.50,000/- in case of accidental death as per policy of the OP. Ravi Kumar son of the complainant met with an accident on 26.08.2012 and DDR Ex.C-2 to this effect was registered on 26.08.2012 in PP, Sector 34, Chandigarh.  Ravi Kumar died on 11.09.2012 due to the injuries in the accident and death certificate Ex.C-4 was got issued by the complainant on 26.09.2012.  Ravi Kumar was unmarried and the complainant being his legal heir filed application Ex.C-5 with the OP to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of accidental death of her son Ravi Kumar.  The Chief General Manager, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi vide letter dated 10.01.2014  Ex.C-8 rejected the claim on the ground that the case was submitted to the bank after 12 months of cause of action which was to be submitted within the prescribed period of 90 days. The complainant also sent legal notice dated 28.03.2014 Ex.C-10 for release of compensation amount but the OP has again rejected the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 28.04.2014 Ex.C-11. Non payment of compensation amount, as per the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Earlier complaint filed by the complainant in Chandigarh Forum was dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2014 for want of territorial jurisdiction.

                With these allegations, the complainant has sought directions to the OP to pay her Rs.50,000/- as compensation amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum; Rs.50,000/- as costs for causing harassment, mental pain and agony and litigation expenses.

2.             The OP in the written statement has pleaded that the compensation was subject to conditions contained in circular issued by the competent authority of the OP. The claim was rejected on the ground that the complainant submitted the claim after 12 months from the date of cause of action against the normal period of 90 days as per circulars dated 29.12.2011 and 15.01.2013 Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 respectively.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Evidence of the complainant consists of her affidavit Ex.CW1/1 and copies of documents Ex C-1 to C-8.

4.             Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Kulwinder Toora, its Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-2.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments filed by them. 

6.             The purchase of debit card is not disputed. As per scheme of things, in the event of purchaser of death card holder, the heirs are entitled to the benefit of death claim to the tune Rs.50,000/-. Undisputedly the complainant is mother of the deceased Ravi Kumar, the debit card holder. Admittedly the debit card holder died on 11.09.2012 due to the accident. The mother of the debit card holder approached the OP for realization of the claim and the same was rejected on the ground that the debit card holder died on 11.09.2012 and the claim has been submitted on 03.09.2013 after 12 months. The claim being time barred was rejected. The complainant has challenged the act of the OP in repudiating the claim being an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the ground that time frame of submission of claim within 90 days from the date of occurrence as mentioned in the bank circulars Ex.OP-1/OP-2 is against the principles of natural justice as the terms are directory in nature and not mandatory in nature.  Moreover the said terms were never disclosed to the card holder while purchasing the debit card as per Ex.C-1 i.e. the pamphlet issued by the bank. Therefore, the said time frame of submission of the claim is not binding on the complainant.

7.             We have perused Ex.C-1 i.e. the pamphlet issued by the OP.  This pamphlet has been issued giving additional benefit to the bank account holders and once the additional benefit has been issued to the account holder after the complainant being satisfied with the scheme of insurance cover, the details of time frame for lodging the claim having been not mentioned in the leaflet by the OP, cannot act belated stage gives any leverage to the OP to decline the claim of the complainant being delayed beyond the 90 days period. Thus the whole action of the OP on the face of it appears to be unjustified, arbitrary and nothing but unfair trade practice. The details and information mentioned in Ex.C-1 are silent about the time frame for submission of claim. Therefore, repudiation of the claim on the basis of some internal circulars Ex.OP-1/Ex.OP-2 of the OP which were not in the knowledge of the debit card holder, at the time of purchase of the card, cannot be pressed against the complainant by the OP. In support of this we take support from a decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in case titled as  Citibank NA Vs. Pusphendra Kumar Jain, 2014 (1) CLT 218. The act of the OP on this account is an act of deficiency in service for which the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.

8.             In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OP to:

(a)    to pay to the complainant compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of submission of the claim till actual payment.

(b)    to pay to the complainant a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) on account of mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                Compliance of the aforesaid directions be made by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of orders be sent to the parties free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

March 18, 2015.

                                                                  (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (Mrs. Sonia Bansal)

Member