DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 167 of 3-12-2018

Decided on : 3-12-2021

1. Pooja Rani aged about 37 years W/o Munish Kumar @ Manish Kumar

2. Manish Kumar aged about 43 years S/o Banarsi Dass

3. - Both R/o H. No. 273, Street No. 7, New SBS Colony, Near Modern Scholar School, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda. ........Complainants

Versus

1. State Bank of India, Bharatya Model School, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda 151 103 through its Branch Manager

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., DO-XVII, Belapura, Vindhya Commercial Complex, 5^th Floor, Plot No. 1, Sector 11, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400614 through its Sr. Divisional Manager

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member.

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member

Present

For the complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate

For opposite parties : Sh. S M Goyal, Advocate, for OP No. 1

Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate, for OP No. 2

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

1. The complainants Pooja Rani & another (here-in-after referred to as complainants) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against State Bank of India and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that Vinod Mittal son of the complainants was bachelor and the complainants are the only legal heirs of the deceased Vinod Mittal. Vinod Mittal was having One saving Account with opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 issued Platinum Debit Card No.4591 8000 0019 2088 valid upto 06/21. At the time of issuing the Debit card and opening the account, the opposite party No.1 duly nominated complainant No. 2 in the account of Vinod Mittal as the same is also mandatory clause. The opposite party No.1 also assured that the account holder is duly insured under P.A. insurance with master Insurance Policy No.240700421710000023 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with opposite party No.2. Nomination papers are in possession of opposite party No. 1 and copy of the same were never issued to the account holder or to the complainants.

3. It is alleged that Vinod Mittal account holder son of the complainants was died in a roadside accident on 08.11.2017. In this regard, FIR was duly registered at P.S. Cantt, Bathinda against the Tipper driver who rashly and negligently driving the vehicle and caused accident. The complainants being nominee cum legal heirs of the deceased lodged claim with opposite party No.1 and the Manager of opposite party No.1 forwarded the same to opposite party No.2 along with duly filled Claim Form, photocopy of Debit Card, photocopy of account Passbook, photocopy of Death Certificate, photocopy of Post Mortem Report, photocopy of Aadhar Card and photocopy of FIR etc. The opposite party never issued any insurance policy or its terms and condition or any document related to the insurance to the account holder or complainants till date.

4. The complainants approached the opposite parties many times and requested them to pay the claim, but they neither replied nor paid the claim amount and lingering on the matter with malafide intention. On 14.05.2018 the complainants sent legal notice and in reply dated 21-5-2018 to legal notice, the opposite party No. 1 intimated that the claim was forwarded to the opposite party No.2 with papers but the opposite party No. 2 neither sent any reply nor sent claim amount to opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No.1 also sent a reminder to the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 neither replied of this legal notice nor paid any claim amount to the complainants.

5. It is also alleged that Vinod Mittal son of the complainants was insured for the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- under PA Insurance scheme with the opposite parties. Due to non-payment of the claim amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under PA Insurance by the opposite parties, complainant has suffered mental agony and pains for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite parties have failed to provide services and sitting over the claim of the complainants.

6. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay claim amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest @18% p.a. in addition to Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation besides Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.

7. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. Opposite party No.1 in its reply raised legal objections that the complainant is not consumer as defined under the 'Act'; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file this complaint nor any cause of action ever arose to the complainant against the opposite party No.1 bank, rather the claim if any is payable only by opposite party No.2.; that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has concealed true and material facts; that the opposite party No.1 has no power to accept or refuse the claim so lodged by the claimants and as such the complaint against opposite party No.1 is false, frivolous,vexatious , baseless, an abuse of process of law, devoid of merits; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party; that the complainants have not given complete list of all natural legal heirs; that the complainants have already filed MACP on 21-12-2017 for compensation regarding death of Vinod Mittal, which is pending but the same has not been disclosed in this complaint; that the complaint contains self contradictory pleadings and that the complaint is not within limitation.

8. On merits, the opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the debit card is issued by concerned branch of SBI, in due process, which is sent to the account holder later on through post and as such question of alleged assurance at the time of issuing debit card does not arise at all. However, the insurance cover is being provided without charging any fee etc. However, there is contract between opposite party No.1 and 2 in this regard. The complainants have approached the opposite party No.1, alleging that account holder Vinod Mittal had died in motor vehicle accident and as such their documents so furnished to opposite party No.1 be submitted/sent to opposite party No.2, by opposite party No.1. However, no such claim amount is payable by opposite party No.1, rather the same is to be decided and settled only opposite party No.2 through its competent officials. Hence, the opposite party No.1 has performed its duty as and when required or demanded by complainants. It is admitted that notice dated 14-05-2018 was served upon opposite party No.1 by counsel for the compliants, to which reply dated 21-05-2018 was given by counsel for opposite party No.1.

9. It is also pleaded that the claim under insurance policy, if any is found payable by their competent officials/authority, the same is payable only by opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 has got no concern, power, authority, to adjudicate the admissibility of claim. After denying all other averments of the complaints, the opposite party Nol 1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

10. The opposite party No.2 also filed its separate written reply by raising legal objections that the complainants have not disclosed nor impleaded all the legal heirs of deceased Vinod Mittal as parties, who are otherwise necessary parties; that the complainants have concealed material facts and documents from this Commission as well as from opposite party No. 2; that the complainants are not consumers; that the complainants have no locus standi or cause of action and that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form.

11. On merits, opposite party No.2 denied that the complainants are the only legal heirs of deceased Vinod Mittal and that the complainants forwarded all the claim documents to opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2 further submitted the same to opposite party No. 2.

12. It is pleaded that the claim intimation and few papers were received on 20-02-2018 which were incomplete for processing and deciding the claim. Therefore, the opposite party No. 2 sent numerous letters and reminder for supplying the documents for processing and deciding the claim but no reply was received from complainants. The opposite party No. 2 called upon opposite party No.1 to provide contact number of complainants. The documents have now been received on 13-07-2018 and the claim has been settled as payable at the sum assured as per terms and conditions of the policy. The amount will be paid on receipt of discharge vouchers from the complainants which has since been submitted and is being processed. It is also denied that the complainants have suffered any mental agony or pains. After denying all other averments of the complaints, opposite party No. 2 also prayed for dismissal of complaint.

13. In support of their complaint, the complainants have tendered into evidence affidavit of Pooja Rani dated 25-6-2018 (Ex.C-1) affidavit of Manish Kumar dated 25-06-2018 (Ex.C-2), photo copy of bank pass book (Ex.C-3), photo copy of debit card (Ex.C-4), photo copy of intimation form (Ex.C-5), photo copy of death certificate (Ex.C-6) photo copy of postmortem report containing pages 1 to 8 (Ex.C-7) photo copy of Aadhar card ( Ex.C-8) photo copy of FIR No. 0107 dated 8-11-2019 containing pages 1 to 6 ( Ex.C-9) photo copy of legal notice along with postal receipt ( Ex.C-10) and closed evidence.

14. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainants, opposite party No.1 also tendered into evidence affidavit of Lajpat Rai dated 24-08-2018 ( Ex.OP-1/1), photocopy of claim letter ( Ex.OP-1/2) photocopy of claim process conditions ( Ex.OP-1/3)photocopy of letter ( Ex.OP-1/4) photocopy of reminder (Ex.OP-1/5)photocopy of letter ( Ex.OP-1/6) photocopy of certificate (Ex.OP-1/7)photocopy of death certificate (Ex.OP-1/8) photocopy of intimation form (Ex.OP-1/9) photocopy of debit card ( Ex.OP-1/10) photocopy of Aadhar Card (Ex.OP-1/11)photocopy of death certificate (Ex.OP-1/12) photocopy of Aadhar Card (Ex.OP-1/13)photocopy of passbook ( Ex.OP-1/14)photocopy of circular ( Ex.OP-1/15).

15. Opposite party No. 2 also tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Verma DM dated 28-08-2018 ( Ex.OP2/1), photocopy of insurance policy (ExOP2/2), photocopy of letters ( Ex.OP2/3 to Ex.OP2/5) and closed evidence.

16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

17. There is no dispute between the parties regarding saving bank account of Vinod Mittal, son of complainant with opposite party No.1 Vinod Mittal,account holder was duly insured under P.A. insurance with master Insurance Policy No.240700421710000023 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with opposite party No.2. Vinod Mittal, died in an accident and complainants submitted all the required documents with opposite party No. 1 for further submission to opposite party No.2. During the pendency of complaint, the opposite party No. 2 paid claim amount i.e. Sum Assured Rs. 5,00,000/- to complainants on 30-08-2018.

18. Submission of learned counsel for the complainants is that opposite parties did not pay the genuine claim of complainants despite submission of all the documents. Complainants have been harassed without any fault on their part. The complainants submitted all claim documents with opposite party No.1.The complainants should not have been made to suffer for any lapse which took place between opposite party No.1and opposite party No.2.

19. A perusal of file reveals that intimation was given to the opposite parties on 8-2-2018 vide letter Ex. C-5. There is no documentary evidence on file that complainants were ever asked by any of the opposite parties for submission of any documents. The complainant got served legal notice dated 14-5-2018 (Ex. C-10) upon the opposite parties and thereafter opposite parties came into action and started process of claim of complainants and forwarded documents and reminders to opposite party No. 2 and got the claim processed that too after filing complaint by complainants before this Commission. As mentioned above, the claim amount has already been paid to complainants on 30-08-2018 during pendency of complaint, but complainants are claiming interest, litigation expenses and compensation. This Commission is of the view that the opposite parties cannot sit over the claim for indefinite period and can take maximum period three months to process the claim and after that they are liable to pay the amount with interest. Therefore, complainants are certainly entitled to interest on claim amount after excluding the three months processing period from 8-2-2018 i.e. from the date of intimation (Ex. C-5). The complainants are entitled to some amount of compensation on account of harassment which they suffered at the hands of the opposite parties without any fault on their part in addition to litigation expenses.

20. Resultantly, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation against both the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to pay interest @9% p.a. on the claim amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to complainants w.e.f. 8-5-2018 till payment i.e. 30-8-2018.

21. The compliance of this order be made by opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

22. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

23. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced :

    3-12-2021

    (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member

     

    (Paramjeet Kaur)

    Member