BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1787/2012
The Manager, Union Bank of India (Amended as per order dt.13.11.2010) P.B. Road, No.31, Harihar Branch, Harihar, Davanagere District. (By Sri V.B. Ravi Shankar) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
Smt. Noorjan, W/o Late Sri Maqbul Sab, Aged about 45 years, Occ : Housewife, R/at C/o Sri B. Mansoor, Nadbansha Wali Makan, Old P.B. Road, Harihar, Davanagere District. (By Sri S. Vishwajith Shetty) | ..…Respondent/s |
ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.05.07.2012 passed in CC.No.17/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Davanagere.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that the husband of the complainant Mr. Maqbul Sab is an account holder in the Opposite Party Bank bearing S.B. Account bearing No.01012955 and he was an employee of South Western Railway, the salary was credited to the said SB account maintained in the Opposite Party Bank. Such being the case, in association with Life Insurance Corporation of India this Opposite Party Bank launched an insurance scheme namely “Crop Jeevan Raksha” for the benefit of SB account holders. Accordingly, the husband of the complainant become a member of the said scheme and membership number was 2005000043 and premium every year is payable towards the said policy is Rs.384/- and accordingly, the same was deducted from 2005 to 2009 and the said insurance was renewed periodically. Such being the case, on 05.03.2011 the account holder/husband of the complainant was died and being the nominee to the said account holder, the complainant claimed for an insured amount by virtue of the policy to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, but, the Opposite Party has not honoured the claim for the reason that as on the date of renewal, the policy holder has not renewed the policy, hence, declined to pay the insured amount. Whereas the complainant alleges that as on the date of renewal, the husband of the complainant had a sufficient amount for deduction of the premium amount towards policy, but, the Opposite Party failed to deduct the said policy for the best reasons known to them, hence, alleged deficiency in service and claimed for compensation. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with interest along with compensation and costs.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/ Opposite Party is in appeal. Heard the arguments of advocate for appellant.
4. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order of the District Commission, we noticed here that the husband of the complainant become a member of the “Crop Jeevan Raksha” which was introduced by the Opposite Party Bank to safeguard the account holders, accordingly, the Opposite Party Bank has deducted a premium of Rs.384/- from the SB account of the insured. In this case, an amount of Rs.384/- was also deducted from the SB account of the life insured from the year 2005 to 2009 regularly. Such being the case, on 05.03.2011 the account holder/husband of the complainant died and being a nominee to the said policy, the complainant claimed for the assured amount, but, the Opposite Party has not settled the claim for the reason that as on the date of renewal i.e. 01.09.2010, the said “Crop Jeevan Raksha” policy was not renewed by the life insured and amount of Rs.888/- was not paid towards the renewal of the policy, hence, declined to settle the claim.
5. On perusal of the order passed by the District Commission, the District Commission on observation of the statement of account of the husband of the complainant that as on 01.09.2010 there was a sufficient balance of Rs.12,464/- in the SB account of the account holder/deceased. Infact the amount of premium has to be deducted on or before 01.09.2020 and early hours of 01.09.2020. That means that the premium amount has to be collected on 31.08.2010 itself. On looking at the statement of accounts in the passbook, the husband of the complainant had sufficient amount for the purpose of deduction of the premium, but, the Opposite Party bank had failed to deduct the said amount as on 31.08.2010 early hours on 01.09.2010. The explanation given by the Opposite Party before the District Commission for non-deduction of the premium amount is not acceptable. Even the learned counsel for the appellant had vehemently argued before this Commission that the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.11,905/- on 01.09.2010, hence, they were unable to deduct the premium amount from the SB account of the insured and submits that no deficiency in service inspite of that the District Commission allowed the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. We are of the opinion that the “Crop Jeevan Raksha” policy is a policy which has to be renewed every year before expiry and an amount has to be collected in this particular policy is Rs.384/-. It is an admitted fact that the policy was renewed periodically since 2005 to 2009, but, the Opposite Party has not explained with proper reason for non-deduction of the premium amount for the year 2010. We observed the Opposite Party Bank had without any instructions from the insured/deceased have deducted the premium from 2005 to 2009. Here we noticed that the Opposite Party bank had sought for payment of Rs.888/- towards the renewal of the policy, but, Opposite Party Bank has not given proper explanation for payment of Rs.888/- towards the deduction of the premium whereas the premium is Rs.384/-. It is a deliberate negligence on the part of the Opposite Party Bank in not deducting the premium amount towards the insurance policy. Infact the Opposite Party Bank has introduced the said scheme to safeguard the account holders including the husband of the complainant. If the Opposite Party Bank has deducted the premium amount on 31.08.2010 itself, the chance of withdrawal from the insured does not arise. Hence, it is a clear negligence on the part of the Opposite Party Bank in not deducting the premium amount. The District Commission has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and directed the Opposite Party to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was legally payable to the complainant. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
