State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Bank Of Commerce vs Jai Bhagwan on 31 May, 2024
First Appeal No. Oriental Bank of Commerce 31.05.2024
427 of 2019 Versus
Sh. Jai Bhagwan
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
Date of Admission: 04.12.2019
Date of Final Hearing: 27.05.2024
Date of Pronouncement: 31.05.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 427 / 2019
Oriental Bank of Commerce
Upper Road, 43, Bholagiri Road
Haridwar through its Branch Manager
(Through: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Advocate)
...... Appellant
Versus
Sh. Jai Bhagwan S/o Sh. Shyam Singh
R/o House No. 151, Vishnulok Colony, BHEL
Opposite Foundry Gate, Kotwali Ranipur
District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Bhagwan Kishore, Advocate)
...... Respondent
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 295 of 2017, styled as Sh.
Jai Bhagwan Vs. Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that Sh. Gautam alias Saurabh S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan R/o 232/1, Brahampuri, Haridwar, having current address as House No. 151, Vishnulok Colony, BHEL, Opposite Foundry Gate, Kotwali Ranipur, 1 First Appeal No. Oriental Bank of Commerce 31.05.2024 427 of 2019 Versus Sh. Jai Bhagwan District Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as "deceased") was hit by an unknown vehicle on 12.10.2016 at 12:00 a.m. in the night and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot, regarding which case crime No. 473 / 2016 under Section 279 / 304A IPC was registered at Kotwali, Jwalapur against an unknown person. The deceased was unmarried and a photographer by profession. There is no other legal heir of the deceased except the complainant. The deceased had opened a bank account with the appellant / opposite party under Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana bearing account No. 00112281000119, which was in operation. In connection with the aforesaid bank account, the deceased was having ATM card No. 6070859017886053, which was valid till 12 (December), 2024. The complainant is an illiterate person and has no knowledge of law as well as rules & regulations of the bank. The complainant had already given information regarding the death of the deceased to the bank, but he could not give the written information to the bank. On dated 21.07.2017, the complainant came to know from one Ms. Manju that on opening a bank account under Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana and on issuance of ATM card in connection with the said account, the card holder is provided insurance cover to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the bank, which is payable by the bank in the event of accidental death or permanent disability of the insured to his / her legal heirs. Upon gathering such knowledge, the complainant had sent a letter dated 22.07.2017 to the bank, thereby requesting to pay the insured amount, but his claim was denied by the bank on the ground that the ATM was not used within one month from the date of death of the deceased and also that the intimation regarding death of the deceased was not given within one month of his death. The deceased was the consumer of the bank and by denying / repudiating the legitimate claim of the complainant, the bank has committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the consumer complaint was submitted by the complainant before the District Commission, with a prayer to direct the 2 First Appeal No. Oriental Bank of Commerce 31.05.2024 427 of 2019 Versus Sh. Jai Bhagwan bank to pay the insured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with Rs. 10,000/- towards mental & physical agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation charges.
3. In the written statement filed before the District Commission, the appellant / opposite party (bank) has pleaded that the consumer complaint is not liable to be allowed and the same should be dismissed. As per the record of the bank, account No. 00112281000119 was in the name of Sh. Gaurav S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan and Sh. Gautam alias Saurabh has got no connection with the aforesaid bank account. As per the guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY), the benefit of insurance policy obtained by National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), is to be granted to the beneficiary only in the event of minimum one successful financial or non-financial transaction at any channel, i.e., ATM / Micro ATM / POS / eCommerce in last 30 days prior to incident. It was also contended that no transaction was recorded in the bank account of the deceased during last 30 days prior to his death, i.e., from 12.09.2016 to 12.10.2016. It was further pleaded in the written statement that as per the aforesaid guidelines, the benefit of the insurance policy can only be given if the intimation regarding death of the insured is given within 30 days' from his death. In the present case, both the above requirements were not fulfilled / complied with, hence the bank has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to any relief and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned District Commission, after hearing learned counsel for the bank and after taking into consideration the material available on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2019, thereby directing the appellant / opposite party to pay the insured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent / complainant along with simple interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing 3 First Appeal No. Oriental Bank of Commerce 31.05.2024 427 of 2019 Versus Sh. Jai Bhagwan of the consumer complaint, i.e., 27.11.2017 till actual payment and litigation charges of Rs. 5,000/-.
5. On having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the present appeal has been preferred by the bank as an appellant, alleging that the impugned judgment and order is erroneous on facts as well as on law and learned District Commission, although accepted the fact that the claim as per the policy, was to be lodged within one month from the date of death, but the same was lodged much beyond the stipulated period, even then the consumer complaint was allowed. It was further contended that learned District Commission has failed to appreciate that the policy documents contain all the terms and conditions and it would be deemed that the account holder had the knowledge of the same and in any case, the appellant was not bound to intimate the complainant about the terms and conditions of insurance policy and the liability of the appellant can at best be held to be to intimate the account holder. Learned District Commission has erred in holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the bank. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is against law as well as terms & conditions of Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana. Therefore, the appeal is fit to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was hit by an unknown vehicle on 12.10.2016 at 12:00 a.m. in the night in front of gate of Govindpuri and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is also admitted by the parties in their pleadings as well as during the course of arguments that a case crime No. 473 / 2016 under Section 279 / 304A IPC against an unknown person was registered at Kotwali, Jwalapur. It is further admitted that the deceased had opened a bank account with the appellant / opposite party under Pradhan Mantri Jan 4 First Appeal No. Oriental Bank of Commerce 31.05.2024 427 of 2019 Versus Sh. Jai Bhagwan Dhan Yojana bearing account No. 00112281000119, in regard to which, ATM card No. 6070859017886053 was issued by the bank in favour of the deceased.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant - bank has submitted the guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY), wherein features of Insurance Policy of NPCI have been given. The relevant features read as under:
S. No. Particulars Eligibility Details
(i) Insurance Eligibility Minimum one successful
financial or non-financial
transaction at any Channel i.e.
ATM / Micro ATM / POS /
eCommerce in last 30 days
prior to incident.
(ii) Claim Intimation Within Thirty (30) days from
the date of Loss.
8. It has also been provided in the aforesaid guidelines that the claim needs to be submitted by the bank at the request of eligible beneficiary directly to the insurance company and it may be noted that settlement of insurance claim will be between bank and insurance agency. NPCI has made this arrangement as a value added offering on Rupay Card. Any recourse, if required, should be as per the provisions of law without any recourse to NPCI. The complainant has not submitted any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to show that the deceased was never informed about the aforesaid guidelines framed under Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana. It is also worth to add that ignorance of law is no ground for allowing the consumer complaint. The complainant has also not filed any such documentary evidence that the deceased had made minimum one successful financial or non-
5First Appeal No. Oriental Bank of Commerce 31.05.2024 427 of 2019 Versus Sh. Jai Bhagwan financial transaction at any Channel, i.e., ATM / Micro ATM / POS / eCommerce in last 30 days prior to his death.
9. The complainant has accepted in his consumer complaint that on account of ignorance of law, he could not inform the bank about the death of the deceased in writing, but he had orally given such intimation to the bank. However, the complainant has not mentioned in the consumer complaint as to on which date, he had given the alleged oral intimation to the bank. The complainant has also not submitted any document to show that he had ever given the intimation regarding the death of the deceased to the bank in writing within 30 days' from the date of loss / death. Thus, it is fully proved and established on record that both the aforesaid mandatory guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana were not adhered to, in the present case. Therefore, it shall be assumed that there was negligence on the part of the complainant in not giving intimation to the bank within 30 days' of the death of the deceased. It is also fully proved on record that the deceased had not carried out minimum one successful financial or non-financial transaction at any Channel, i.e., ATM / Micro ATM / POS / eCommerce in last 30 days prior to his death. So, in the absence of compliance of the aforesaid guidelines, it can not be held that the bank was deficient in service in any way. Thus, learned District Commission has erred in holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the bank by repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant.
10. We are of the definite view that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is perverse and not in accordance with the guidelines formulated under Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana. The impugned judgment and order is against facts, evidence as well as mandate of law and is based on presumption and surmises. We are also of the considered opinion that the complainant 6 First Appeal No. Oriental Bank of Commerce 31.05.2024 427 of 2019 Versus Sh. Jai Bhagwan has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the bank. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is totally unjustified and the District Commission has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law and has acted with material illegality and infirmity, while passing the impugned judgment and order. Thus, we are inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the District Commission. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
11. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the District Commission is set aside and consumer complaint No. 295 of 2017 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs of the appeal. The amount deposited by the appellant with this Commission, be released in its favour.
12. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
13. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 31.05.2024 7