Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/17/2023

BANK OF BARODA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAMLA DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL AHUJA ADV.

26 Jun 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Appeal No	:	A/17/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	01/02/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	26/06/2023

 

 

 

 

 

1.   The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, SCO 1120-21, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

2.   The Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Zonal/ Regional Office, SCO 185-187, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. Present Address: Overbridge Building No.2, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh - 160017.

 

3.   The General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Head Office: Baroda Bhavan, R.C Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Baroda – 390007, Gujarat (India). 

…. Appellants

 

V E R S U S

 

Kamla Devi wife of Sh. Balvir Singh, Resident of House No. 2238/62, Gali No.6, Shanti Nagar, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh – 160101.

…… Respondent

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Vishal Ahuja, Advocate for the Appellants.
		Sh. Parvesh Kumar Banwal, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.12.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/304/2021, in the following terms:-

“4.  In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under:-

1. to pay the insurance amount of ₹2,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 05.05.2021 till realization of the same.

 

2. to pay an amount of ₹30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;

 

3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5.   This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

2.      For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

3.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that she is mother of Sh.Mantej Varma (now deceased) who was having his S.B.Account No.01100100015745 with Opposite Party No.1. The deceased had taken a Term Insurance Policy under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (hereinafter referred to as “PMSBY”) on 21.10.2019 for which premium of ₹12/- was deducted by the OP Bank on 21.10.2019 from the said saving bank account. When the deceased Sh.Mantej Varma was at the age of 22 years, he met with an accident on 25.07.2020 and succumbed to the injuries on 27.07.2020.  The matter was reported to the Police, which resulted in registration of FIR. Post mortem examination of the deceased was also conducted on the same day. As premium of the term insurance was deducted on 21.10.2019, the insurance policy was valid for one year i.e. till 20.10.2010 and since Sh.Mantej Varma had died on 27.07.2020, he was very much covered under the aforesaid insurance policy. As per rules for the PMSBY, premium was to be auto debited from the saving account of the insured by the Bank. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties to pay the insured amount of the deceased under the said policy, but, the same was declined by on the ground that at the time of death of the deceased Sh.Mantej Varma, policy had already expired and accordingly Opposite Parties refused to pay the insured amount vide Annexure C-7. As there was no fault on the part of the deceased to pay the subsequent premium, since as per rules it was the responsibility of the Bank to provide auto debit service and the premium has to be deducted from the saving account of the insured, it was sole responsibility of the Opposite Parties to renew the policy. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

4.      Upon notice, the Opposite Parties resisted the consumer complaint pleading that as lien was marked on the account of the deceased due to which no effective amount was available in the account of the deceased, as a result of which premium for the period w.e.f 01.06.2020 to 31.05.2021 was not deducted.  It was admitted that the deceased Sh.Mantej Varma was having aforesaid saving account with the Opposite Parties and an amount of ₹12/- was deducted as premium for the coverage of period starting from 21.10.2019 to 31.5.2020, but it was denied that the Policy was not renewed due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, rather the same was not renewed as there was no effective amount available in the account of the deceased in the month of May 2020 since the Policy was required to be renewed w.e.f. 01.06.2020 to 31.05.2021. As the deceased had died on 27.07.2020 and the Policy in question was not in operation at that time, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice or negligence on the part of Opposite Parties. On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended and a prayer for dismissal of the Complaint was made.

 

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the consumer Complaint of the Respondent/Complainant, as noticed in the opening para of this order.    

 

6.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties.

 

7.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties at length and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, along with written arguments advanced on behalf of the Parties,  with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 
9.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.      It is the case of the Appellants/ Opposite Parties that the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding. Learned Counsel for the Appellants/ Opposite Parties argued that due to creation of lien on the saving account of the deceased Sh.Mantej Varma, due premium could not be deducted from his saving account, which fact has altogether been ignored by the Ld. Lower Commission. However, we are not impressed with this limb of argument for the sole reason that the Rules for PMSBY scheme makes it mandatory for the Banks to provide auto debit facility for providing benefits to the insured and other mandates also makes it obligatory for the participant banks that the deduction of premium amount will be made when the auto debit option is given. While passing the order impugned before us, the Ld. Lower Commission has taken due note of the said Rules while holding that it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to get the policy renewed by debiting the premium amount from the saving account of deceased. Furthermore, there was no reference of any lien in the statement of account placed on record by both the parties. Also, the lien maintenance/ lien history, placed on record by the Opposite Parties shows that even if the total amount of lien be calculated, the same was less than the available balance amount shown in the statement of account of the deceased from which said premium of ₹12/- could have been debited by the Opposite Parties.

 

11.      Learned Counsel for the Appellants further argued that sufficient balance was not lying in the account of the deceased at the time when the Policy had lapsed on 31.05.2020. However, record shows, Appellants demolished their own case by producing the statement of account, which indicates that even on 13.04.2020 an amount of ₹11,657.35 was lying in the account of the deceased and on 04.05.2020 the sum was ₹11,716.35 and even in the month of August an amount of ₹11,807.35 was available in the account of the deceased. To our mind, it was for the Bank to debit the premium by providing auto debit service under the PMSBY and in case the Bank failed to debit the premium amount, it cannot escape from its liability. Once it is proved that sufficient balance was lying in the savings account of the complainant and no lien was marked qua the account of the deceased nor the deceased was informed about the availability of insufficient funds in his account by the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant by not getting the insurance policy of the deceased, Sh. Mantej Varma renewed. No case is therefore made for any interference in the findings recorded qua this issue by the Ld. Lower Commission. 

 

12.      No other point was urged, by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.

 

13.      It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

14.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

15.      The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

 

16.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

17.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

26^th June, 2023                                

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”