Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/285/2015

Master Vishal(Minor) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Corporation bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amit Jaiswal Adv.

02 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	285 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	01.06.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	02.05.2016

 

 

 

 

 

1]  Master Vishal (Minor) s/o of Late Sh.Raj Kumar through his mother and natural guardian-Smt.Santosh Devi.

 

2]  Smt.Santosh Devi widow of Late Sh.Raj Kumar,

Both residents of H.No.564, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh.  

             …..Complainants

Versus

 

1]  Corporation Bank through its Branch Manager, SCO No.171, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

 

2]  Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, SCO No.171, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

 

3]  The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

 

4]  The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Third Floor, Essel Chambers, Opposite Karanglpady Market, Manglore 575003 through its Manager/Branch Manager.  

   

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Amit Jaiswal, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.G.S.Ahluwalia, Adv. OPs No.1 & 2

                              Sh.J.P.Nahar, Adv. for OPs NO.3 & 4.  

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, Sh.Raj Kumar, the father of the complainant, who was holding an account with Opposite Party No.1, unfortunately died on 19.11.2014 in a road side accident. It is averred that the complainant No.1- Master Vishal was recorded nominee against the said account of his father. It is also averred that the Opposite Party Bank had insured Late Sh.Raj Kumar through personal accident insurance cover to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs. It is further averred that the complainants approached the OPs a number of times for withdrawal of amount lying in the bank account of late Sh.Raj Kumar and also for getting the compensation under the personal accident insurance cover, but they did not pay any heed.  It is pleaded that OPs told the complainants that no amount shall be released to them until the complainant NO.2 gets herself appointed as guardian of her minor son Vishal i.e. complainant NO.1, who is the nominee of late Sh.Raj Kumar in bank record, by the court.  It is also pleaded that as per provisions of Section 4 & 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father and mother being natural guardians of their children, have already been recognized as guardians by the Act, and they do not need any order from the court for the purpose.  Ultimately, the complainants sent a legal notice to the OPs, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It is not denied that the deceased Raj Kumar was having insurance cover of Rs.5.00 lacs.  It is stated that the deceased was automatically entitled to Personal Accident Insurance Cover, on his opening Corp Saral Plus Saving Bank Account with the OPs and the same is clear from e-circular of the Opposite Party Bank (Ann.R-1).  It is also stated that the natural guardian of the complainant was duly explained by the Opposite Party Bank on her contacting the branch that she is required to raise claim in the sum of Rs.5.00 lacs to the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. along with death certificate of the deceased/insured and she did accordingly.  However, the New India Assurance Company has processed the application and has advised the complainant, through natural guardian, to fulfill some mandatory requirements.  It is pleaded that the issue of dispute being raised by the complainant is only qua New India Assurance Company Ltd., who has now been made party the present complaint. Furthermore, though the complainants had confirmed the possession of the insurance policy document sent by the insurance company, but till date, no claim for release of the amount lying in the Corp Saral Plus Saving Account of the deceased in the sum of Rs.204/- has been made.  It is also pleaded that the answering Opposite Parties have no role to play in sanctioning/rejecting the insurance claim and in releasing the insurance claim amount, as the same is the exclusive task of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.  It is submitted that no legal notice was received by the OPs. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

        

         The OPs No.3 & 4 have filed joint reply and admitted that the deceased Sh.Raj Kumar was insured for Rs.5.00 lacs for personal accident insurance being account holder of the Opposite Party Corporation Bank through Opposite Party No.4.  It is stated that no amount is payable unless a valid discharge is given to the insurance and the complainant NO.1, in whose name the nomination is given, being minor cannot give a valid discharge, whereas complainant NO.2 has not submitted any document appointing her as guardian of complainant No.1. It is pleaded that the payment of claim is pending because of non-submission of the document appointing complainant No.2 as guardian of the complainant No.1.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed qua OPs No.3 & 4.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The fact with regard to the entitlement of the complainant No.1 to inherent the claim amount from the OPs, being the Nominee of Late Sh.Raj Kumar, a savings bank account holder of OP No.1 & 2 Bank, is not disputed.  However, after the demise of Late Sh.Raj Kumar, the complainant No.2 along with complainant No.1, claimed the entitlement of the insured amount from the OPs, the claim was processed by OP No.1 & 2 giving and forwarding the same to OPs No.3 & 4 for their necessary action at their end.  However, the controversy arose, when OP No.3 & 4 raised an objection with regard to the claim of OP NO.2 not being tenable as she did not demonstrate the fact with the OPs No.3 & 4 about her status as guardian of OP No.1.  OPs No.3 & 4 advised her to seek a civil court’s decree entitling her to be a guardian of complainant No.1 and thereafter seek the insured amount on behalf of complainant No.1. 

 

6]       The pleadings of the complainants in Para No.7, 8 & 9 of their complaint have clearly demonstrated that the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 establishes that the Complainant No.2 (Mother of minor child) is the Sole Guardian Complainant No.1 and when a law or statute confers such entitlement or right, there is no occasion for OPs No.3 & 4 to compel, complainant No.2 (Mother of minor child) to seek a civil court decree for such purpose.

 

7]       The aforementioned Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, clearly mentions that ‘a ‘Minor’ is a person under the age of 18. A ‘Guardian’ is the caretaker of a minor, his or her properties, or both. Categories of Guardians include; a natural guardian, a guardian chosen by the mother or father, a guardian appointed by a court, and a person who qualifies as a guardian according to the ‘Court of Wards.’

 

8]       The definition of natural guardians, clearly mentions that ‘the father is the primary guardian of a legitimate boy & unmarried girl and their property, while the mother is the secondary guardian.  However, the mother is the primary guardian of all children under the age of five.  For illegitimate children, the mother is the primary guardian, while the father is the secondary guardian. A married girl’s husband becomes her guardian xxxxxxx’. 

 

9]       ‘Natural guardians can take actions that will benefit and protect the minor and his or her properties xxxxxx’.

 

10]      In view of the aforementioned definitions, it is clearly established that the Complainant No.2, after the demise of her husband late Sh.Raj Kumar, is the primary guardian of her minor son Master Vishal, Complainant No.1, and there was no reason for OPs No.3 & 4 to demand any court order for her to establish her credentials as the primary guardian of Complainant No.1, as it can be easily established from other simple documents like ration card or Date of Birth Certificate or Hospital Record where the minor child was born or Copy of the Passport etc., and these documents are being admitted as a valid proof to establish her credentials by different authorities and government offices. Therefore, the OP NO.3 & 4 are certainly deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant, and also for having delayed the matter of settlement of rightful claim, has also caused them unwanted misery and hardships. The very simple procedure that OPs No.3 & 4 could adopt was with regard to establishing the identity of Complainant No.2 being the primary guardian of Complainant No.1 and getting her to sign such document facilitating the transfer of the insured amount in the bank account of Complainant No.1.

 

11]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainants. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainants is allowed against Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 and dismissed qua OPs No.1 & 2. The Opposite parties No.3 & 4 are directed as under:-

 

[a] To pay the insured amount of Rs.5.00 lacs to complainant No.1, along with interest 6% per annum from 1.1.2015 till it is paid;

 

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainants as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

 

[c] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7,000/- to the complainants

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount of Rs.5.00 lacs to complainant No.1, instead of 6% per annum, from 1.1.2015 till it is paid; and also on the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- from the date of filing the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

2^nd May, 2016                                                              

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om