Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No. 136/07.05.2024
Kamlesh Devi Bala Gupta wife of Late Chaman Lal
r/o-1063, Peer Mohalla, Hapur, UP-2451010 …Complainant
Versus
OP1- The Chairman
New India Assurance Co. Ltd
Head Office : 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kala Ghoda,
Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001
OP2- The General Manager
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Mumabi LCB-2-99000, New India Centre, Ground Floor,
17A, Cooperage Road, Mumbai-400039
OP3-Axis Bank Ltd. (through its Director)
Office at : 4/6-B, Ground Floor, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002
OP4- Shri Rupesh Singh –Deputy Manager,
Axis Bank Ltd. 4/6/B, Ground Floor, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002 ...Opposite Parties
Item No.24 and also no. 3
09.12.2024 - Order- [On point of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission on complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019]
Inder Jeet Singh, President
Appearance –Sh. Harshit, proxy counsel for Sh. Shanti Prakash, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Zunaid Ibrahim, proxy counsel for Sh. Pulkit Chaudhary, Advocate for OP.
None for OP2.
None for OP3 and OP4 today, otherwise Sh. L. R. Goyal, Advocate for OP3 & OP4 have been appearing vis-à-vis the issue being decided today was raised on behalf of OP3 & OP4.
It is scheduled today for order on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction.
1.1 (Introduction) - What happened the complainant [being, widow of ASI
Chaman Lal (died on 02.07.2023, hereinafter referred as deceased), a Delhi Police personnel] filed the complaint since she was denied accidental death insurance claim of Rs. 78,00,000/- by the OPs vide letter dated 12.12.2023 by OP1.The deceased was maintaining salary saving account with OP3/Axis Bank and its Deputy Manager/OP4. The claim was lodged but it was declined. The jurisdiction of this Commission been invoked by the complainant on basis of branch of the OP3/Bank at Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. The complaint is accompanied with copy of - Identify proof of deceased, letter dated 29.08.2023 for benefits accrued under policy, claim denial letter dated 12.12.2023, inquest proceedings, and legal notice and additional documents (including statement of account). The complaint was without furnishing details of the insurance policy since, as appears, it was not with the complainant.
1.2 Notice was issued to the OPs on the complaint. However, while directing notices to OPs, it was also directed that OPs will furnish the detail of insurance policy, premium amount and copies of insurance policy to ascertain factual position, which find mentioned in order dated 10.6.2024 and it was so reiterated in the notices in bold letters (to draw attention at glance).
1.3 The OP1 and the OP2 caused appearance, they filed their application (MA281/24) seeking to condone delay of 08 days and to take their written statement on record besides filing the proposed written statement. Similarly the OP3 and the OP4 caused their appearance, they also filed their application (MA-272/24) seeking condonation of delay (of 07 days) and to take their written statement on record. The OPs have opposed the claim and complaint on merits. Moreover, OPs also filed documentary record, inclusive of copy of insurance policy with the terms and conditions and policy schedule respectively.
However, OP3 and OP4 took preliminary objection no.4 r/w M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd & 3 ors CC 833/2020 dod 28.08.2020 (N/C), that value of the goods or service paid as consideration are to be taken basis for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction, on that basis the present Commission lacks jurisdiction. This issue of pecuniary jurisdiction of the present Commission is being dealt.
2.1 The OP3 and OP4 refers policy schedule (Annexure R3/1, page 10) that the insurance policy was issued in the name of Axis Bank Ltd. and the premium paid was Rs. 68,36,65,166/- and the premium amount paid is consideration and it determines the pecuniary jurisdiction. The pecuniary jurisdiction of present DCDR Commission is upto Rs. 50,00,000/-, therefore, on the basis of premium amount paid for policy, it is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the present District Commission. The complaint is liable to be rejected.
Similar contentions have been advanced by Sh. L R Goyal, Advocate for OP3 and OP4 by reading the ratio of M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd & 3 ors CC 833/2020 dod 28.08.2020 (N/C), that value of the goods or service paid as consideration amount for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.
2.2 Whereas, the contention of OPs are opposed by Shri Shanti Prakash Advocate for complainant with certain objection, like the OP3 and OP4 had just filed the policy schedule, the complete document of terms and conditions was not filed. The other OPs had filed complete record of insurance policy (page 14-25 of their paper-book), which is material being definition of 'claim', 'insured' 'named insured' etc. The policy was issued to Axis Bank/OP3, however, beneficiary are the personnel of Delhi Police for location of all over India basis. Thus deceased is covered under the policy and complainant is entitled receive claimed amount
. In the policy scheduled the risk covered is "Coverage for Salary-PA". Ld. Counsel for complainant further refers statement of account of deceased and entry of Rs.69,690/-, which is salary amount used to be released to the employee, This salary amount being paid to the employee is consideration for the purposes of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. It is within the jurisdiction of present District Commission. In addition, there was a similar matter cc no.271/2022 Anita Sehgal Vs the New India Assurance Co Lt d.and Axis Bank before the DCDRC (North District), in which paid premium amount was Rs.13.80 crores, however, it was tried and decided on 16.02.2024 by that Commission, it may also be considered to proceed with this matter and decide the present complaint on merits.
2.3 Then Ld. Counsel for OP3 and OP4 submitted that final order in cc no.271/2022 has been assailed in appeal before Hon'ble State Commission, Delhi.
3 (Findings)- The contentions are considered keeping in view the statutory provision of law of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, notification issued by Central Government, policy documents filed by the parties, the case law presented by the parties or otherwise. After considering them, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i) The complaint was filed on basis of 'zero' premium by husband of complainant [paragraph 13 of the complaint] and claim amount of Rs.78 Lakhs besides other relief. However, during the course of arguments, the amount of salary of Rs.69,690/- has been pressed for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction.
(ii) The insurance policy document or other detail was not available nor made available to the complainant by any quarter (either by OPs or employer of deceased), that is why it was not filed by the complainant but the OPs filed it with the written statement. In fact there was specific directions by this Commission in the notice issued to the OPs to furnish its details, it was complied by them.
(iii) As per section 34 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 read with the notification dated 30.12.2021 by the Central Government, the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Commission is up-to Rs. 50,00,000/-. The section 34 also mention criteria/determinant of pecuniary jurisdiction being the value of goods or services paid as consideration.
(iv) The ratio Pyari Devi case (supra) was also referred in subsequent matter namely Atul Kumar Jain and other Vs Expersion Developers Pvt Ltd [CC no,./2022 dod 19.05.2022] and also in Anita Sharma Vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd FA no.969/2022 dod 20.02.2023 that value of consideration paid is premium for taking insurance policy and it determines pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission. The was also referred in proceedings dated 10.06.2024 while making prima facie observations and asking the OPs to furnish requisite details.
The premium amount of Rs.68,36,65,166/- was paid by OP3/Bank to the OP1/Insurance Company, it is consideration for the subject policy No. 99000046231300000001 in favour of OP3 and policy schedule also mentions this paid premium and other features. This paid premium is more than Rs. 50,00,000/- and it is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of DCDR Commission.
(v) The plea of complainant that salary amount determines the pecuniary jurisdiction is not within the purview of section 34 of the Act. The deceased had not paid the premium amount at his individual level and for him it was 'zero' premium but the premium was paid by OP3 for policy for the benefit of employees/account holders pursuant to the arrangement; the insurance policy issued is against consideration of premium amount paid.
So far decision in CC no.271/2022 Anita Sehgal case (supra) by other District Commission, Delhi is concerned, there is no discussion or issue on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction. Otherwise, this Commission is determining the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction this complaint in terms of its own facts and features. Therefore, decision of Anita Sehgal case is not at the avail the complainant.
4. Accordingly, it is held that for want of pecuniary jurisdiction of DCDRC Central District, Delhi on the present complaint cc no.136/2024, it is required to be returned to the complainant forthwith to enable her to present it before competent Commission as per law, if so advised, since it is without prejudice to rights of complainant under the law. The complaint is being returned forthwith, the complainant may also take back the original complaint forthwith. In case she does not take the complaint back, then complaint and other record will be consigned to record room. (a certificate of returning of the complaint is appended/issued on the complaint itself). Certified free copy of this Order be provided to complainant forthwith and it may be taken dasti; failing to take it, the same will be sent by post. The order be also uploaded on the web-site of this Commission. No order of costs. Consequently, the applications MA-272/2024 and MA-281/24 became infractuous and they are deemed to be disposed off.
5. While dealing with this case as well as two more cases in very recent past, what emerged is that beneficiary of policy are not provided with the details of policy number, its exact tenure, premium paid etc, that is why this kind of situation arisen, which confronted the complaint where to approach. Since OP/Banker is custodian of insurance policy obtained for beneficiaries, but beneficiary are not knowing the policy number, sum insured, tenure of policy, etc. The OP3 is directed to ensure to provide such information timely to the insured-beneficiaries from time to time. Let copy of this order be sent to the Head Office of OP3/Insured, appropriate Authority or Regulatory Authority for appropriate information and necessary action so that provision for providing basic details to the actual beneficiary of policy so that in case of need of the beneficiary or its representatives has readily detail and information.
6. Announced on this 9th day of December, 2024 [अग्रहायण 18 , साका 1946].
[Rashmi Bansal]
Member (Female)
[Inder Jeet Singh]
President
