Haryana

Karnal

CC/683/2021

Smt. Indra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

26 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.683 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.06.12.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:26.10.2023

 

Smt. Indra, aged 54 years, wife of late Shri Sushil Kumar son of lae Shri Shiv Dhan, resident of house no.420, Gali no.22, Vikas Colony, Karnal. Aadhar no.7344 6925 7825.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, 311-L, Model Town Branch, Karnal.                               

…..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

          

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

                    Shri Pankaj Malhotra, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, president)

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that the husband of the complainant, namely Sushil Kumar (since deceased) was having Saving Bank account (salary account) bearing no.30850413653 with the OP. He was having ATM card International Debit Card (Global) bearing no.5446 7000 5942 6284, valid upto 02/26. He was operating the same of his own regularly prior to his death. On 11.04.2021, the husband of complainant met with a Road side accident within the area of Police Station Madhuban (Karnal) and succumbed to the injuries lateron. An FIR no.279/304A IPC with the Police Station of Police station, Madhuban, Karnal was registered in this regard. His PMR was conducted on the next day in Civil Hospital, Karnal. After the death of her husband, the complainant submitted the claim form alongwith all other relevant documents with the OP for the settlement of the accidental benefits/compensation of ATM card as per the policy of the Bank. But despite several visits, no response was given by the officials of the OP. It is further averred that husband of complainant was hale and hearty prior to his death and was not suffering from any ailment or illness. The complainant is legally entitled for the death benefit as well as ATM card benefits. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 07.07.2021 to the OP but it also did not yield any result. The claim of the complainant has neither been settled nor repudiated intentionally and deliberately by the OP. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant had never approached the Bank and the Bank is ready to settle the claim and forward to the insurance company i.e. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. 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 statement of account Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, copy of ATM Card ExC4, copy of PMR Ex.C5, copy of FIR Ex.C6, copy of legal notice 07.07.2021 Ex.C7, postal receipt Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 22.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sudra Dev Sharma, Chief Manager Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 19.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

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

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that insured Sushik Kumar (since deceased) was having Saving Bank account with the OP. He was also having ATM card International Debit Card (Global). He was operating the same prior to his death. On 11.04.2021, the husband of complainant met with a Roadside accident and succumbed to the injuries. An FIR no.279/304A IPC with the Police Station of Police station, Madhuban, Karnal was registered. After the death of her husband, the complainant submitted the claim form alongwith all other relevant documents with the OP for the settlement of the accidental benefits as per the policy of the Bank. But despite several visits, no response was given by the officials of the OP. The claim of the complainant has neither been settled nor repudiated by the OP and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that as per record of the OP, no claim was lodged by the complainant. Without submitting the claim, OP cannot settle the same and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

10.           Admittedly, Sushil Kumar (since deceased), the husband of complainant was having a saving bank account with the OP.

11.           OP has alleged that no claim has been lodged by the complainant and the present complaint is premature.

12.           Before going to the merits of the case, firstly we decide, whether the present complaint is pre-mature or not?

13.           The onus to prove for submitting the claim with the OP was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove her version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. If the complainant had submitted the claim with the OP and supplied the required documents, she would have placed on file the copies of said documents. Furthermore, complainant has also failed to disclose date and month for submission of the claim form with the OP. Thus, we are of the considered view that complainant has not submitted the claim with the OP.  Hence, in view of the above, the present complaint is premature and not maintainable.

14.           Further, the ATM card in question was insured with the Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company but said Insurance Company has not been impleaded as a party in the present complaint, which is necessary party being insurer of the ATM card. Thus, the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

15.           In view of the above observation, the present complaint is disposed off with the liberty to the complainant to submit the claim form alongwith documents as required by the OP and on receipt of the same, OP is hereby directed to decide the claim of the complainant within 30 days. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:26.10.2023    

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

  Member                   Member