Haryana

Karnal

CC/316/2021

Smt. Pooja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

11 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.316 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.07.7.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:11.05.2023

 

Smt. Pooja, aged 35 years, wife of late Shri Vijay @ Bijender, resident of house no.7, Meerut Road, D.C. Colony, Karnal. (Aadhar no.7004 7095 6871).

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Punjab National Bank, Ding Branch, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.

2.     Punjab National Bank, Circle office, Sector-12, Karnal through its authorized officer.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before      Shri Jaswant Singh……President

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri S.S. Moonak, counsel for complainant

                   Shri Brijesh Sharma, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER: 

       

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the husband of complainant namely Vijay @ Bijender (since deceased) was having bank account bearing no.0642000-100066883 with the OPs and was having ATM/debit RUPAY card no.6070 9360 7709 6441. The husband of the complainant received injuries in a roadside accident and he succumbed to the same on 01.10.2020. His postmortem was conducted by the doctors of Civil Hospital, Hissar, and a criminal case was registered vide FIR no.706/2020, under section 279/304-A IPC with the police of Police Station Sadar (Hissar) in this regard. The deceased Vijay was using the ATM/Debit (Rupay debit) card prior to his death regularly. As per the policy of the Bank, it covers the death of holder of ATM card, as such the complainant is legally entitled to the accidental benefits/ compensation of the said ATM/Debit Card being the widow of deceased. After the death of her husband, complainant submitted all the relevant documents including claim form and other required documents as demanded by the officials of the OPs for settlement of the claim i.e. death certificate/claim of the deceased Vijay, but official of the OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further averred that at  the husband of complainant was young, hale and hearty prior to his death and was not suffering from any ailment. The complainant is legally entitled for the death benefits as well as ATM card benefits. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.02.2020 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result.  In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on the basis of usage of Rupay Classic Debit Card during the course of lifetime of Shri Vijay, the deceased husband of the complainant. As per the scheme of the bank, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for accidental death/permanent total disability in case the customer has performed minimum one successful transaction through debit card within 45 days of the date of accident by the usage of Rupay Platinum Debit card and an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for accidental death/permanent total disability in case the customer has performed minimum one successful transaction through debit card within 45 days of the date of accident by the usage of Rupay Select Debit Card. As per the allegations of the complainant itself, the deceased husband of the complainant was not using any of the above cards, so the present complaint filed against the OPs is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of passbook of bank account Ex.C2, copy of ATM/debit Rupay card Ex.C3, copy of FIR Ex.C4, copy of postmortem report Ex.C5, copy of legal notice dated 17.02.2020 Ex.C6, postal receipt Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 13.01.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rohit Sharma, Branch Manager Ex.OPs/A, copy of digital bank circular Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 01.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that husband of complainant was having a bank account with the OPs and was also having an ATM/debit RUPAY card. The husband of the complainant received injuries in a roadside accident and he succumbed to the same on 01.10.2020. As per the policy of the Bank, it covers the death of holder of ATM card, as such the complainant is legally entitled to the accidental benefits/ compensation of the said ATM/Debit Card being the widow of deceased. After the death of her husband, complainant submitted all the relevant documents with the OPs and requested to settle the claim but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that as per the scheme of the bank, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for accidental death in case the customer has performed minimum one successful transaction through debit card within 45 days of the date of accident by the usage of Rupay Platinum Debit card  but the deceased was not using the above cards, so the present complaint is not maintainable and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, husband of the complainant was having a Bank account in the bank of OPs. It is also admitted that he was also having Rupay Debit Card. It is also admitted that card holder died on 01.10.2020 in the Roadside accident. It is also admitted that complainant is the nominee in the said account.
11.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs on the ground that husband of the complainant was not using above cards. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OPs but OPs have miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Rather, complainant has proved on record her version by placing on file the passbook Ex.C2, on perusal of said passbook, it reveals that on 02.08.2020 an amount of Rs.10,000/-, on 21.09.2020 an amount of Rs.15,000/- and on 23.09.2020 an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.10000+Rs.10000+ Rs.5000) have been withdrawn through ATM by using the said card. Hence, it has been proved on record, the husband of complainant was using the said card before his death and lastly had used the said card only eight days prior to his death. Hence, plea taken by the OPs has no force. Thus, the act of the OPs while repudiating the claim of complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

12.           As per scheme of the OPs bank, complainant is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/-sum insured alongwith interest, compensation for mental pain and agony and towards litigation expenses.

13.                 In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. two lakhs only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:11.05.2023     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member