State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Geohybrid Industrial Solution Pvt Ltd vs Idbi Bank Ltd on 31 August, 2023
Details DD MM YY
Date of disposal 31 08 2023
Date of filing 18 08 2017
Duration 13 00 06
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE AHMEDABAD.
COURT NO: 03
APPEAL NO. 496 of 2017
1. Geohybrid Industrial Solutions Pvt Ltd,
Plot No. A-33-35,
Gujarat Eco Textile Park,
National Highway No.8,
Palsana - 394315.
2. Ankitaben N. Sharma
3. Jayaben Narendrakumar Sharma
Appellant Nos. 2 & 3 are residing at:
51, Sainagar, Tal: Bardoli,
Dist: Surat. ...Appellants
(Original Complainants)
Vs.
1. IDBI Bank Ltd
2. Branch Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd.
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 having address at:
SNS House, Ghod Dod Road,
Surat.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
4. Branch Manager
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 having address at:
J.E. Plaza, Airport Road,
Yervada, Pune - 411006. ...Respondents
(Original Opponents)
Kushal A/496/2017 Page 1 of 12
=============================================================
BEFORE: Mr. I. D. Patel, Judicial Member
Ms. A. C. Raval, Member
APPEARANCE: Mr. N.S. Dave L.A. for the appellants,
Mr. B.G. Jani L.A. for the Respondent nos. 1 & 2,
None appeared for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 though the
notice was served.
==============================================================
ORDER BY Mr. I. D. PATEL, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants - original complainants have preferred the present appeal as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act, 1986") against the impugned order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Additional), Surat (for short "learned District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No.988 of 2014 dated 19.07.2017 on the grounds stated in the appeal memo. The appellants are the original complainants, whereas, the respondents are the original opponents. Hence, for the sake of convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature / status.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the appellant no.1 -
complainant no.1 is a company wherein the deceased son of the present appellant no.3 was serving. It is further the case of the appellants - original complainants that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had approached the appellant no.1's office with the scheme to open salary accounts of their employees with the respondent nos. 1 and 2 - bank in the year 2013. The brochure of the scheme was also given at the relevant point of time to the appellant no.1 for opening of crown salary account of the employees of the company. It is Kushal A/496/2017 Page 2 of 12 further the case of the appellants that as per the letter dated 26.07.2013 of the IDBI Bank, the crown salary account holder will get the benefits mentioned in the letter dated 26.07.2013 including personal accident cover upto Rs.3,00,000/-. It is further the case of the appellants that thereafter, the appellants - original complainants wrote a letter date 21.12.2013 to the IDBI Bank, wherein, the appellant - company had given consent for opening of crown salary account of 12 employees including the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma. It is further the case of the appellant - company that in view of the said letter dated 21.12.2013 of the appellant - company, the appellant - company send the necessary papers for opening of crown salary accounts of their employees. It is further the case of the appellant - company that thereafter, the appellants - original complainants has also deposited the salary of the concerned employees having the crown salary accounts including the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma for a period of five months with the IDBI Bank and in turn, the IDBI Bank has also credited the said amount in the crown salary accounts of the employees including the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma. It is further the case of the appellant - company that as on 28.06.2014, deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma died on account of accident. Therefore, the appellant - company lodged the claim before the IDBI bank for availing the benefits upto Rs.3,00,000/- for personal accident insurance for the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma and thereafter, the appellant - company had also pursued the matter for the settlement of the claim, but vide letter dated 11.08.2014, IDBI bank refused to extend the benefits of the crown salary account to the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma including personal accident coverage upto Rs.3,00,000/- since the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma was not having a crown salary account in the bank. It is further the case of the appellant - company that Kushal A/496/2017 Page 3 of 12 in fact, IDBI bank had deposited total five months' salary in the crown salary account of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma and the bank had also issued debit card to the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma. However, the bank had falsely refused to make the payment of accident benefits to the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma and thereby, the bank had committed unfair trade practice qua the legal heirs of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma as well as the appellant no.1 - company and therefore, the appellant no.1 - company and the legal heirs of deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma filed the consumer complaint before the learned District Forum and claimed the relief in terms of paragraph no.16 of the complaint against the respondents - original opponents.
3. That, before the learned District Forum, the respondents - original opponents appeared and filed their reply, wherein, they have categorically denied that the bank had opened the crown salary account of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma and therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma are not entitled to get any benefits including the benefit of personal accident coverage upto Rs.3,00,000/- and therefore, the opponents prayed for dismissal of the complaint filed by the complainants.
4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record of the case, the learned District Forum was pleased to reject the complaint of the complainants. Therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the learned District Forum passed in Consumer Complaint No.988 of 2014, the appellants - original complainants filed the present appeal on the grounds stated in the appeal memo.
5. We have heard the learned advocate Mr. N.S. Dave on behalf of the appellants - original complainants and the learned proxy advocate Kushal A/496/2017 Page 4 of 12 Mr. N.M. Shah on behalf of learned advocate Mr. B.G. Jani for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Though the notice was served to the respondent nos. 3 and 4, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 have not appeared before this Commission.
6. That, the learned advocate Mr. N.S. Dave for the appellants -
original complainants has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum rejecting the complaint of the complainants is not just and proper. He has also submitted that the findings recorded by the learned District Forum for rejecting the complaint of the complainants in paragraph nos. 15 and 16 are against the material on record. The learned District Forum has misinterpreted the facts stated in the complaint and the learned District Forum has wrongly placed reliance upon the reply filed by the opponents.
7. That, the learned advocate Mr. N.S. Dave for the appellants -
original complainants has also submitted that on 21.12.2013, the appellant - company wrote a letter to the opponent - bank for opening of crown salary accounts of 12 employees including the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma and accordingly, the bank had opened the said accounts. It is also submitted by the learned advocate Mr. N.S. Dave for the appellants - original complainants that even the appellant - company has also deposited the salary of the employees having the crown salary accounts including the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma for a period of five months with the IDBI Bank and in turn, the IDBI Bank has also credited the said amount in the crown salary accounts of the employees including the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma as per the various documents produced before the learned District Forum. That, the learned advocate Mr. N.S. Dave for the appellants -
Kushal A/496/2017 Page 5 of 12original complainants has submitted that presuming for the sake argument that there was no paper formalities done by the appellant
- company or deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma for opening of crown salary account in the bank, but since the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma was having saving bank accoung in another IDBI branch and the IDBI bank had deposited five months' salary of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma in the crown salary account. Therefore, the bank had no legal right to refuse to extend the benefit of crown salary account including the benefit of personal accident coverage upto Rs.3,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma. So as per the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants - original complainants that the action on the part of the IDBI Bank for refusal to extend the benefits of crown salary account of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma is against the evidence on record.
8. That, the learned advocate Mr. N.S. Dave for the appellants -
original complainants has also submitted that even the bank had never informed or intimated to the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma as well as the appellant - company for completion of paper formalities for opening of crown salary account of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma till his death. That, the learned advocate Mr. N.S. Dave for the appellants - original complainants has also submitted that the appellant - company has also produced the requisite documentary evidence of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma regarding crown salary account before the learned District Forum vide list dated 04.05.2017 (page-84). However, the learned District Forum has not rightly appreciated the same and falsely recorded the findings in paragraph no.15 of the impugned order that the appellants - original complainants have failed to produce the documentary evidence that the bank has agreed to give Kushal A/496/2017 Page 6 of 12 accidental benefits to its employees. So, as per the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants - original complainants, the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is not just and proper and the findings recorded by the learned District Forum are erroneous and perverse and the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside. Hence, he has urged to allow the present appeal.
9. Per contra, learned proxy advocate Mr. N.M. Shah on behalf of learned advocate Mr. B.G. Jani for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 - IDBI Bank has supported the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum rejecting the complaint of the appellants - original complainants. He has also submitted that the learned District Forum has rightly considered the evidence on record and recorded the findings in paragraph nos. 15 and 16 for rejection of the complaint. The learned proxy advocate Mr. N.M. Shah on behalf of learned advocate Mr. B.G. Jani for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that neither deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma nor the appellant no.1 - company had completed the paper formalities for opening of crown salary account of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma. So, the bank has rightly refused to extend the benefits of the crown salary account to the legal heirs of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma. Furthermore, the learned advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has also submitted that the letter dated 21.12.2013 addressed to the IDBI Bank by the appellant - company only states the opening of the crown salary account of 12 employees including the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma. Thereafter, any of the complainants had not done any procedure for opening of the crown salary account till the death of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma. So, there is no any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed by the IDBI Kushal A/496/2017 Page 7 of 12 bank and therefore, as per the submission of the learned advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, the impugned order passed by the learned District Commission requires to be upheld or confirmed and the present appeal filed by the appellants - original complainants requires to be dismissed.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants and learned advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. We have also gone through the impugned order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the learned District Forum in Consumer Complaint No.988 of 2014 and documentary evidences produced by the parties before the learned District Commission.
11. That, herein in this appeal, the main question, which is required to be adjudicated, is that whether the IDBI Bank had opened the crown salary account on the basis of the letter dated 21.12.2013 addressed to the IDBI Bank by the appellant - company and accordingly, the legal heirs of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma is entitled to get the benefits of crown salary account including the benefit of personal accident coverage upto Rs.3,00,000/- or not. That, it is an admitted fact that the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma was an employee of the appellant no.1 - company. It is also an admitted fact that vide letter dated 26.07.2013, the IDBI Bank informed the appellant - company for opening of crown salary accounts of their employees, for which, they have also mentioned the various benefits available to the account holder including the benefit of personal accident coverage upto Rs.3,00,000/-. That, on the basis of the letter dated 26.07.2013 (page-21) of the IDBI bank, the appellant no.1 - company informed the IDBI Bank vide letter dated 21.12.2013 (page-27) for opening of crown salary accounts for their 12 Kushal A/496/2017 Page 8 of 12 employees including the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma. It further appears that the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma expired in the vehicular accident on 28.06.2014, therefore, vide letter dated 08.07.2014 (page-28), the appellant - company informed the same to the IDBI Bank for extending the benefit of personal accident coverage upto Rs.3,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma and also forwarded the relevant documents including the death certificate, post mortem report and police papers to the IDBI Bank. That, it also appears from the record that the appellant - company send a list of statement of the salary for the month December 2013 of their employees having crown salary account for depositing their salary including the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma of Rs.9,592/- and the said salary is credited by the bank as on 17.01.2014. As per page-103 and 86, Bank has also informed the deceased for crediting his salary for the month of December 2013 to the sum of Rs.9,592/- in his account. Thereafter, on perusal of page-87, 92, 93 and 95, it appears that the Bank has also credited the salary to the sum of Rs.8,491/- for the month of January 2014 in the account of the deceased. So, on perusal of the various documents and the bank statement, it appears that till five months, the Bank had credited the salary of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma in the crown salary account. Even though as per the say of the Bank, neither appellant - company nor deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma had completed the paper formalities for opening of crown salary account. So, according to our considered view, presuming for the sake of argument that neither the appellant - company nor deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma had completed any paper formalities for opening of crown salary accounts in the IDBI Bank, but on the basis of the letter of the appellant - company as well as cheques forwarded to the IDBI Bank for depositing the salary of Kushal A/496/2017 Page 9 of 12 deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma in the crown salary account. The bank had deposited the same in the crown salary account of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma categorically suggests that the bank had waived the completion of paper formalities for opening of crown salary account of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma. So, looking to the conduct of the bank for crediting the salary of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma in the crown salary account for a period of five months till his death, though neither the appellant - company nor the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma had completed the paper formalities for opening of crown salary account. Bank is liable to extend all benefits of crown salary account including the benefit of personal accident coverage upto Rs.3,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma.
12. That, though the appellant - company have produced sufficient evidence before the learned District Forum to prove that the appellant - company informed the IDBI Bank for opening of crown salary account of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma vide letter dated 21.12.2013 and thereafter, the bank had also credited the salary of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma upto five months, the learned District Commission has not considered the same in the right perspective and recorded erroneous and perverse findings in paragraph nos. 15 and 16 of the impugned order that the appellants - original complainants failed to produce the requisite documentary evidences to show that the bank has agreed to give accidental benefits to its employees. So, according to our considered view, when the appellants - original complainants have successfully proved before the learned District Forum that the IDBI Bank had committed unfair trade practice while refusing or extending the benefit of personal accident coverage upto Kushal A/496/2017 Page 10 of 12 Rs.3,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma having crown salary account in the bank, the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum requires to be quashed and set aside in the present appeal and accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant - company and legal heirs of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma requires to be allowed in terms of the following final order.
ORDER
1. The Appeal No.496 of 2017 filed by the Geohybrid Industrial Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors. is hereby partly allowed.
2. The impugned order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Additional), Surat in Consumer Complaint No.988 of 2014 dated 19.07.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. The respondents are hereby directed and ordered to pay Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith the interest @ 8% to the appellants - legal heirs of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma from the date of complaint till its realization within 30 days from the date of this order. The respondents are also hereby directed and ordered to pay Rs.3,00,000/- in equal proportion i.e., Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent no.2 and Rs.1,50,000/- respondent no.3.
4. The respondents are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the appellants - legal heirs of the deceased Chintan Narendra Sharma for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- for the cost of the litigation.
Kushal A/496/2017 Page 11 of 125. Registry is hereby instructed to send a copy of this order in PDF format by E-mail to learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Additional), Surat for taking necessary action.
6. Office is directed to forward a free of cost certified copy of this judgment and order to the respective parties.
Pronounced in the open Court today on 31st_August, 2023.
[A. C. Raval] [I. D. Patel]
Member Judicial Member
Kushal A/496/2017 Page 12 of 12