State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kanchan Aabasaheb Pawar vs The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India on 6 March, 2024
1
Date of filing :13.10.2022
Date of order :06.03.2024
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 779 OF 2022
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 304 OF 2021
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : JALNA.
Kanchan Aabasaheb Pawar, Appellant
R/o Patoda (Maw), Tq.Partur, (Adv. R.V.Jadhav)
Dist.Jalna.
VERSUS
The Branch Manager, Respondent
State Bank of India, (Adv.Ruturaj Patil)
Branch Watur Bhata
Tq- Partur, Dist.Jalna.
CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
Dr.Nisha.A.Chavhan, Hon'ble Member.
Nagesh C.Kumber, Hon'ble Member.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 06/03/2024) Per Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon'ble Member..
The appellant has challenge in this appeal the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Jalna in C.C.No.304 /2021 dated 08.09.2022.
For the sake of brevity the appellant is herein after referred as complainant and the respondent is herein after referred as opponent as per their status in Consumer Complaint and the District Consumer Commission, Jalna is herein after referred as District Commission.
22.-Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under, On 11.10.2020 the husband of complainant, Aabasaheb Munjaji Pawar, who was a teacher (in short, deceased ) died due to drowning in river water while returning to home from school. Incident has been informed to Ashti Police Station. Accordingly Accidental Death No 12 /20, was registered. Police conducted inquiry /investigation. Post Mortem was conducted on dead body. Deceased had salary account A/C No.35085385673 with opponent. It is alleged by complainant in her complaint that, as per Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna ( in short, PMSBY ) clause 14, the bank has to deduct Rs.12 from the account of his account holders and pay to insurance company as premium towards PMSBY and on failure, liable to pay Rs. 200,000/- if there is a accidental death of account holder. As such opponent has not debited the premium amount Rs.12/- from the account of deceased towards premium of PMSBY, therefore opponent is responsible to pay the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. On 26.10.2021 complainant forwarded the claim with opponent. The opponent has not paid the amount, and thereby committed deficiency in service towards complainant the complainant filed consumer complaint and claim Rs. 200,000/- with 18 % interest, Rs. 10,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 5000/- for cost of litigation. The complainant filed copy of police papers, bank pass book, claim proposal, PAN card and Adhar Card etc.
3. Opponent appeared before the District Commission filed reply and resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that, the deceased had not given consent to opponent to debit Rs.12/- from his account towards the premium of PMSBY. The scheme is not compulsory but it is optional to the account holders. Without the consent and declaration form of account holders the opponent has no authority to debit the sum from their account. Therefore opponent has not committed any deficiency in service towards complainant and not liable to pay as prayed for.
34. On hearing the counsel of both parties and considering the entire evidence on record the District Commission held that the deceased had not consented opponent to debit Rs.12/- from his account towards the premium under PMSBY and opponent has not committed any deficiency in service and dismissed the complainant.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order, the complainant came to this Commission in appeal. Adv.R.V.Jadhav for complainant and Adv. Ruturaj Patil for opponent were present. Heard both advocates.
6.- Adv.Jadhav for complainant argued and submitted by way of their pleadings and written notes of arguments that, the deceased was account holder of opponent and as per para 14 of PMSBY dated 10.06.2021, it is duty of the bank to deduct Rs.12/- from the account of his account holders and pay as premium towards PMSBY and on failure, liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- if there is a accidental death of account holder. It is further submitted by him that opponent has not paid premium of deceased towards PMSBY and committed deficiency in service and therefore liable to pay.
7. On the contrary Adv.Patil argued that, the deceased had not given consent to opponent to debit Rs.12/- from his account towards the premium of PMSBY. The scheme is not compulsory but it is optional to the account holders. Without the consent and declaration form of account holders the opponent has no authority to debit the sum from their account. The District Commission has rightly adjudicated the matter and pray for dismissal of appeal.
8. We have gone through the appeal compilation, impugned judgment and order, pleading and written notes of arguments of the parties. It is not disputed that, deceased died accidently, and he has a salary account with bank of 4 opponent. But for determination of claim under the scheme Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna, it is most important to ascertain as to whether the deceased has enrolled his name under the said scheme. Merely because of opening of salary account is not sufficient for applicability of said insurance scheme as the said scheme is optional and not compulsory. Therefore first of all it is necessary to analyze as to whether the deceased has opted his nomination by submitting all necessary document along with application form. After perusing all the documents placed on record it never seen that, complainant had filed a single document in respect of the submission of any application by deceased for joining his name under the scheme. Even no other material placed on record by complainant to show that, deceased has given consent for auto-debit of premium under the scheme with opponent. Thus in our considered opinion the cover under the scheme shall be for those who submit option to join under the scheme or permits the bank by submitting consent letter to auto debit of premium in prescribed form. In the case in our hand there is no such consent letter which shows deceased had opted for enrolment of his name under the said scheme or permitted the bank to auto debit his premium. Admittedly the premium is not debited from the account of deceased. Hence this commission came to conclusion that, the deceased was not insured under the scheme even his name is not enrolled under the scheme. Therefore he is not entitled for any benefit under the scheme. The amount of premium at all not debited by opponent hence bank is not liable to pay insurance claim under the scheme. The complainant fail to establish that, bank on their self accord entitled to debit or auto debit amount from the account of its customer, without obtaining any consent or mandate for auto debit. As such the District Commission has rightly held that, the deceased had not permitted the opponent to debit Rs. 12 towards premium under PMSBY Scheme. Therefore, the opponent had not at all committed any deficiency in service towards the complainant and not liable to pay as prayed by complainant.
59. In view of aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that, the District Commission has rightly dismissed the consumer complainant. We do not find any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to interfere in the said order. Consequently the appeal is devoid of merit hence deserve to be dismissed. In the fact and circumstances of the case there is no order as to cost. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copy of this judgment and order given to both parties free of cost.
N.C.Kumbre Dr.N.A.Chavhan M.S.Sonawane Member Member Presiding Member UNK