State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Sumitra Devi Oreon vs Manager Bank Of India on 26 November, 2025
H. P. ST AT E CONSUMER D ISPUTES REDRESS AL
CO MMISSION SHIML A.
First Appeal No. : 233/2024
Date of Presentation: 09.10.2024
Order Reserved on: 19.11.2025
Date of Order: 26.11.2025
_____
Sumitra Devi Oraon, W/o late Shri Joginder Oraon, R/O Visht
Niwas, Lower Panthaghatti, Shimla-171009, H.P.
........Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1. Manager, Bank of India, The Mall, Shimla-171001.
2. Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India Building (IV Floor),
Sector-17, Chandigarh.
.......Respondents/Opposite Parties.
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
Hon'ble Ms. Yogita Dutta, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr. Sukh Dev Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Suresh Kumar Madhania, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2: None.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
ORDER
Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by Learned District Consumer 1 ?
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Sumitra Devi Oraon Vs. Manager, Bank of India & Anr.
(F.A. No.233/2024) Commission, Shimla, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No.4/2023 titled Sumitra Devi Oraon Vs. Manager, Bank of India & Anr. whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. Brief facts of Case:
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant's husband had a saving bank account No.790210110006208 with the respondent No.1/Bank of India. Husband of the complainant died on 30.10.2020 who was the member of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) and contributory to the said scheme. Intimation of accidental death of husband of the complainant was given to the opposite party No.1/bank within 30 days and submitted claim forms to the opposite party No.1/bank but till date no payment on account of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) has been received by the complainant.
Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the present complaint has been filed.
3. The complaint so filed has been opposed by the 2 Sumitra Devi Oraon Vs. Manager, Bank of India & Anr.
(F.A. No.233/2024) opposite parties by filing separate replies. Opposite party No.1/Bank of India in its reply has alleged that complainant was asked to supply the requisite documents but the complainant supplied the documents through WhatsApp which were not legible. Thereafter, the complainant again asked to supply the legible copies of documents but she failed to supply the same till date, therefore, the claim of the complainant could not be forwarded to the insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/bank. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.
4. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that opposite party No.2/Ombudsman has not entered into any banking transactions with the complainant. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the replying opposite party.A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.
5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
3
Sumitra Devi Oraon Vs. Manager, Bank of India & Anr.
(F.A. No.233/2024)
6. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
8. Arguments heard on behalf of the parties and perused the record of the case carefully.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that the amount under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) has been received by the complainant. He has submitted that complainant is also entitled for compensation, litigation cost and interest from the opposite parties.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondent No.1/bank has submitted that complainant had not supplied the required documents and complainant supplied said documents on the direction of this Commission only on 11.09.2025 and thereafter claim was forwarded to 4 Sumitra Devi Oraon Vs. Manager, Bank of India & Anr.
(F.A. No.233/2024) New India Insurance Company. He further submitted that the claimed amount under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) has been deposited in the account of the complainant. He has further submitted that earlier complainant never supplied documents to the respondent bank and complainant had also not made insurance company as a necessary party to the complaint. He further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank as respondent bank is only a mediator between the complainant and the insurance company and prays that appeal of the complainant be dismissed. FINDINGS
11. The admitted fact emerging on record is that husband of the complainant was having an account with the respondent bank and he became member of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through respondent bank.
5
Sumitra Devi Oraon Vs. Manager, Bank of India & Anr.
(F.A. No.233/2024)
12. Perusal of impugned order shows that the complaint was dismissed by learned District Commission on the grounds that the documents supplied by complainant through WhatsApp were not legible and secondly, the insurance company, who was to honour the claim, had not been impleaded as a party to the complaint.
13. Aggrieved against the said order the complainant preferred the present appeal before this Commission, however, during the proceedings of the appeal on 11.09.2025 appellant/complainant supplied the requisite documents to the opposite party No.1/Bank of India who forwarded the same to the insurance company and claimed amount under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) was remitted in the account of the complainant.
14. As the claim was immediately got settled by the opposite party/bank after receiving the relevant legible documents from the complainant during proceedings of the appeal, therefore, opposite party/bank cannot be said to be 6 Sumitra Devi Oraon Vs. Manager, Bank of India & Anr.
(F.A. No.233/2024) deficient in rendering services to the complainant. Rather, the act of the opposite party/bank is customer oriented and in public interest.
15. In the instant case, the complainant herself failed to supply the proper and legible documents to the bank and filed the complaint before the learned District Commission instead of supplying the requisite documents, therefore, respondent bank cannot be held liable to pay any compensation, interest and litigation cost to the complainant.
16. Since the claimed amount has already been paid to the complainant, therefore, appeal of the appellant/complainant is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
17. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
18. Certified copy of order be sent to the parties and their counsel(s) strictly as per rules. File of District Commission alongwith certified copy of order be sent back and file of State Commission be consigned to record room 7 Sumitra Devi Oraon Vs. Manager, Bank of India & Anr.
(F.A. No.233/2024) after due completion. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President Yogita Dutta Member S.H. 8