Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/483

Kamini Nayyar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Thaman adv

17 Mar 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:483 dated 02.08.2018.                                                         Date of decision: 17.03.2022. 

Kamini Nayyar aged about 57 years wife of Sh. Sudhir Kumar, resident of Street No.13, W. No.12, Marrian Road, Anand Nagar, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana. (Mobile No.84279-64945)                                                                                                                                       ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, G.T. Road, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana.
2. The Senior Manager, Canara Bank, 4^th Floor, Sector 17, Central Vista, Chandigarh.
3. Authorized signatory, Canara Bank Card Division, Spencer’s Tower No.86, M.G. Road, Bangalore.
4. H.S.B.C. Insurance Company through its Branch Manager of the office situated at Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint Under Section 10 and 12 of the Consumer                                      Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Naveen Thamman, Advocate.

For OP1 to OP3             :         Sh. Rishi Bansal, Advocate.

For OP4                         :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that Bharat Nayyar son of Sudhir Kumar was holding savings account No.2101101019484 with the OP bank. A debit card bearing No.5497 5921 0103 was issued in his name by the bank under the said account. Bharat Nayyar died on 16.04.2018 in road accident. As per the rules of the bank, there was a debit card insurance to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. After the death of Bharat Nayyar, the complainant requested the OPs to pay the insurance amount to her as she is the only legal heir of Bhrat Nayyar who was a bachelor at the time of his death. However, the OPs had not paid the insurance claim. Even a legal notice served upon the OPs on 15.06.2018 failed to evoke a positive response from them. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be made to pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @12% per annum and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, OP4 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complaint, however, has been resisted by the OP1 to OP3. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OP1 to OP3, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is false and frivolous having been filed only to harass the OPs. According to the OPs, the account of Bharat Nayyar was joint with Simmi Nayyar. The account holder had availed debit card facility for the said account and a Master Classic Debit card bearing no.5497 5921 0103 5082 was issued to him and was operative at the time of death of Bharat Nayyar. No personal accident death benefit of any kind was provided to the debit card holder and therefore, family of the account holder was not eligible for any kind of accidental claim from the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C13 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP1 to OP3 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Kalyan Singh, power of attorney holder of OPs along with document Ex. R1 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through written arguments submitted by the complainant and have also gone through the record.  k

7.                 In this case, the claim of the complainant is that as per rules of the bank, every debit card holder was insured to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, in this regard, no documentary evidence has been placed on record which might prove that Bharat Nayyar was insured with an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of issuance of the debit card. In the written arguments, it has been submitted by the complainant that the complainant came to know that the insurance company of the debit card issued to Bharat Nayyar was OP4 i.e. HSBC Insurance Company. However, to substantiate this, the complainant has not brought any documentary evidence on record nor any record has been summoned from the said insurance company. Therefore, it does not stand proved on record that the OPs had insured the debit card holder to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- or that OP4 had issued any such insurance policy. Therefore, it has to be held that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the allegations made in the complaint.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

92.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.03.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Kamini Nayyar Vs Canara Bank                                     CC/18/483

Present:       Sh. Naveen Thamman, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Rishi Bansal, Advocate for OP1 to OP3.

                   OP4 exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.03.2022.

Gobind Ram.