State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Br. Manager, State Bank Of India. vs Smt. Veena Devi. & Anr. on 24 May, 2019
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 258/2018
Date of Presentation: 20.09.2018
Order Reserved on : 01.01.2019
Date of Order : 24.05.2019
......
Branch Manager State Bank of India Branch Chamba Tehsil and
District Chamba H.P.
...... Appellant/Opposite party No.1
Versus
1. Smt. Veena Devi Wife of Shri Ashok Kumar Resident of
Village Nagori Post Office Sach Tehsil & District Chamba
H.P.
......Respondent/Complainant
2. The Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Dalhousie Road Pathankot District Pathankot Punjab.
......Respondent/Opposite Party No.2
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Chauhan Advocate vice
Mr. Vishal Vasudeva Advocate.
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Parveen Chauhan Advocate.
For Respondent No.2: Ex-parte.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 07.08.2018 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. Branch Manager State Bank of India Versus Smt. Veena Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.258/2018) complaint No.07/2018 titled Smt. Veena Devi Versus Branch Manager State Bank of India & Anr.
Brief facts of Matter:
2. Complainant filed consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that deceased husband of complainant obtained PMSBY Insurance policy from opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that annual premium of Insurance policy was Rs.12/- (Twelve) which was used to be deducted from saving bank account of deceased bearing No.32871870623 SBI Branch Chamba H.P. It is further pleaded that during the subsistence of Insurance policy husband of complainant died on dated 20.10.2015 by way of drowning into Ravi river when husband of complainant was going to his office duty. It is further pleaded that dead body of husband of complainant was recovered on dated 25.10.2015 and postmortem of deceased Ashok Kumar was conducted by Medical Officer Regional Hospital Chamba. It is further pleaded that on dated 02.11.2015 complainant submitted the death claim but death claim was not paid to the widow of deceased. It is further pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of death claim as per Insurance policy alongwith interest from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. 2
Branch Manager State Bank of India Versus Smt. Veena Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.258/2018) In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand) as compensation for mental agony and harassment. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) on account of litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that deceased was insured with opposite party No.2. It is pleaded that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No.1. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present consumer complaint. It is pleaded that deceased Ashok Kumar was not insured with opposite party No.2 under PMSBY. It is further pleaded that complainant did not complete required formalities. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service and did not commit any unfair trade practice. It is further pleaded that consumer complaint is barred by limitation. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
5. Complainant filed rejoinders and reasserted the allegations mentioned in complaint.
3
Branch Manager State Bank of India Versus Smt. Veena Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.258/2018)
6. Learned District Forum ordered opposite parties jointly and severally to pay amount of Rs.200000/- (Two lac) to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual payment. In addition learned District Forum ordered that opposite parties would pay Rs.25000/- (Twenty five thousand) as compensation to the complainant for mental harassment. In addition learned District Forum ordered that opposite parties would pay litigation costs to the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand).
7. Feeling aggrieved by order passed by learned District Forum Branch Manager State Bank of India filed present appeal before State Commission.
8. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of appellant and co-respondent No.1 on merits and we have also perused entire record carefully. None appeared on behalf of co-respondent No.2 before State Commission despite service. Co-respondent No.2 was proceeded ex-parte by State Commission.
9. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether genuine claim 4 Branch Manager State Bank of India Versus Smt. Veena Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.258/2018) should be rejected by Insurance Company and whether SBI could be exonerated from liability for non-forwarding the Insurance claim to Insurance company for about twenty six months?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
10. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deceased husband of deponent took PMSBY Insurance policy. There is further recital in the affidavit that annual premium of Insurance policy was Rs.12/- (Twelve) which was used to be deducted from saving bank account of deceased bearing No.32871870623 SBI Branch Chamba H.P. There is further recital in the affidavit that sum assured in the Insurance policy was Rs.200000/-
(Two lac). There is further recital in the affidavit that during the subsistence of Insurance policy husband of deponent died on dated 20.10.2015 by way of drowning into Ravi river. There is further recital in the affidavit that dead body of husband of deponent was recovered on dated 25.10.2015 and postmortem of deceased Ashok Kumar was conducted by Medical Officer Regional Hospital Chamba. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent submitted the claim but death claim was not settled by the opposite parties. State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by complainant.
5
Branch Manager State Bank of India Versus Smt. Veena Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.258/2018)
11. Opposite party No.1 filed affidavit of Shiv Kumar Narula Chief Manager State Bank of India Branch at Chamba in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deceased husband of complainant was insured with opposite party No.2. There is further recital in the affidavit that after receipt of legal notice dated 15.12.2017 opposite party No.1 informed opposite party No.2 for settlement of claim vide letter dated 02.01.2018. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No.1 prior to legal notice dated 15.12.2017 did not receive any intimation regarding death of deceased Ashok Kumar.
12. Opposite party No.2 filed affidavit of Sunil Tuli Sr. Divisional Manager in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service. There is further recital in the affidavit that deceased Ashok Kumar was not insured with opposite party No.2 under PMSBY. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant did not complete formalities. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the consumer complaint and opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service and also did not commit any unfair trade practice. State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by opposite parties.
6
Branch Manager State Bank of India Versus Smt. Veena Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.258/2018)
13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of SBI that Insurance company is under legal obligation to pay Insurance claim of deceased husband of complainant and bank is not liable to pay the Insurance claim and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Chief Manager SBI has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that deceased was insured with opposite party No.2 i.e. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and on receipt of notice dated 15.12.2017 SBI informed the Insurance company for settlement of claim vide letter dated 02.01.2018. It is proved on record that complainant filed claim form in the office of SBI on dated 02.11.2015. It is also proved on record that SBI has deducted amount of Rs.12/- (Twelve) from the saving bank account of deceased on dated 28.05.2015 upto 31.05.2016 as per Annexure C-8 placed on record under PMSBY. No reason assigned by SBI as to why SBI did not forward the claim form to Insurance company w.e.f. 02.11.2015 to 02.01.2018. SBI kept the matter pending for about twenty six months. No satisfactory explanation given by SBI as to under what circumstances the claim form of the complainant was not forwarded to the Insurance company. It is well settled law that party could not take benefit of its own wrong and laxity. Non-action on the part of SBI continuously for about twenty six months ipso-facto tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of SBI. Even SBI did not 7 Branch Manager State Bank of India Versus Smt. Veena Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.258/2018) place on record Insurance policy. It is proved on record that Insurance policy was obtained by the deceased through SBI. It is also proved on record that SBI has deducted premium from the Saving Bank account of deceased kept with SBI. Even SBI did not mention number and date of Insurance policy in version and in the affidavit filed by Chief Manager of SBI despite the fact that SBI has deducted premium amount to the tune of Rs.12/- (Twelve) from the saving bank account of deceased on dated 28.05.2015 upto 31.05.2016 under PMSBY and also in view of the fact that opposite party No.2 has refuted that deceased was insured with opposite party No.2.
14. It is proved on record from postmortem report Annexure C-3 that deceased Ashok Kumar had died due to drowning. Even Gram Panchayat Saach District Chamba has given certificate that deceased died due to drowning when he slipped in Ravi river. It is specifically mentioned in the certificate that deceased was working as Baildar. Postmortem report Annexure C-3 and certificate given by Pradhan Gram Panchayat are relevant fact and same remained unrebutted on record. It is held that claim of complainant is genuine claim and it is well settled law that genuine claim should be paid to the consumers. See 2019 (1) CPR 471 NC titled ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Honest Bio-Vet 8 Branch Manager State Bank of India Versus Smt. Veena Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.258/2018) Pvt. Ltd. See AIR 2017 SC 4836 (DB) titled Om Prakash Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
15. It is held that spouse, children and parents of deceased fall within beneficial nominees as per Nomination Rules 2015 and it is also well settled law that genuine claim of legal-heirs should be paid. As per law beneficial nominees are direct dependent upon policy holder i.e. Spouse, children and parents. Even complainant falls within Class-I legal-heir of deceased. There is no evidence on record that deceased executed any testamentary document excluding the complainant from movable and immovable property.
16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of SBI that present consumer complaint is not within limitation and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that cause of action to the complainant is recurring in nature and no repudiation letter issued by Insurance company placed on record. It is well settled law that limitation starts from date of repudiation of claim and not from date of incident. See 2012 (II) CPJ 312 NC tilted Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited Versus IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of SBI that compensation amount awarded by learned 9 Branch Manager State Bank of India Versus Smt. Veena Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.258/2018) District Forum to the complainant to the tune of Rs.25000/- (Twenty five thousand) for mental harassment is excessive in nature and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that complainant is widow of deceased insured and it is also proved on record that SBI kept the claim matter of complainant pending for about twenty six months without any reasonable cause. The age of complainant who is widow of deceased is 49 years. State Commission is of the opinion that reasonable compensation has been granted by learned District Forum for mental agony and harassment to the widow of deceased and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in the order of learned District Forum.
18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of SBI that learned District Forum has granted excessive litigation costs to the complainant and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that complainant is widow of deceased aged 49 years and complainant has to file consumer complaint before learned District Forum and complainant also engaged Advocate and also paid Advocate fees and also paid litigation expenses. State Commission is of the opinion that reasonable litigation costs has been ordered by learned District Forum 10 Branch Manager State Bank of India Versus Smt. Veena Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.258/2018) and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in the litigation costs ordered by learned District Forum.
19. No appeal filed by National Insurance Company against the order of learned District Forum as provided under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. No relief granted to the National Insurance Co. by State Commission. Even none appeared on behalf of Insurance Company before State Commission despite service and National Insurance Co. was proceeded ex-parte by State Commission.
20. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order of learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is widow of deceased aged 49 years and it is proved on record that SBI did not forward the claim to the Insurance company for about twenty six months despite receiving claim form on dated 02.11.2015 in a written manner. There is also no evidence on record that SBI had demanded any document from the complainant w.e.f 02.11.2015 to 02.01.2018 continuously for about twenty six months. Non-action and laxity on the part of SBI is writ large in the present matter. Hence it is not expedient to exonerate SBI from liability. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. 11
Branch Manager State Bank of India Versus Smt. Veena Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.258/2018) Point No.2: Final Order
21. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Premium deducted by SBI to the tune of Rs.12/- (Twelve) from the Saving Bank Account of deceased on dated 28.05.2015 upto 31.05.2016 under PMSBY (Annexure C-8) shall form part and parcel of order. Certified copy of order be sent to learned District Forum for information forthwith. File of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member 24.05.2019.
*GUPTA* 12