United Commercial Bank vs Amarjeet Singh

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member

These Revision Petitions have been filed against the impugned Order dated 24.01.2018, passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in First Appeal Nos. 640 of 2017 and 744 of 2017, vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party was dismissed, and the Appeal filed by the Respondent/Complainant was allowed; and the Order of the Ld. District Forum was modified.

The factual background in brief is that the Complainant and his wife operated a joint Saving Account with the Petitioner for many years. When the Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) was initiated, the Complainant requested the Petitioner to deduct the premium for both himself and his wife under the scheme. The Petitioner began deducting the Complainant's premium as of 29.05.2015. However, the premium deduction for the Complainant's wife did not commence, despite the Complainant filling out the necessary application form for her. Due to the Complainant's illness and subsequent bypass surgery, he could not visit the bank for an extended period. When he discovered that his wife's premium was not being deducted, the bank asked him to submit a new application form for her, which he did on 07.09.2015. The Petitioner was supposed to start deducting her premium on 31.05.2016. Tragically, the Complainant's wife passed away in a road accident on 03.07.2016. After performing her final rites, the Complainant approached the bank for the PMSBY claim, but was informed that she was not covered because her premium had not been deducted. Despite evidence that application form was duly filled and the policy number was allotted to her in the scheme, the bank rejected her policy without informing the Complainant. Contrary to the Petitioner's stance, other banks where the Complainant and his wife had joint accounts began deducting premiums for the PMSBY scheme without any requests from the Complainant. Despite a Legal Notice from the Complainant, the Petitioner provided a misleading response. Being aggrieved by the Petitioner's deficient service, the Complainant filed his complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Rupnagar.

The District Forum vide its Order dated 28.07.2017 partly allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/-. The Petitioner and the Respondent/Complainant then filed cross Appeals against the District Forum’s Order in the State Commission which dismissed the Petitioner’s Appeal and allowed the Complainant’s Appeal; and modified the Order of the District Forum. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below -

“10. So far as the contention of the opposite party in F.A. No.640 of 2017 that the complainant or his wife had not supplied any Aadhaar Card details to the Bank or his wife did not give instruction for deduction of necessary premium from their account, is concerned, it is relevant to mention here that wife of the complainant filled in the fresh application dated 07.09.2015, Ex.C- 2, wherein Adhaar Card number is duly mentioned in Column No.6 thereof. Once the Adhaar Card details have been duly given by his wife in the said application, then the opposite party cannot say that the complainant or his wife did not supply copy of Aadhaar Card, which is duly placed on record as Ex.C-10, which she was having since the year 2014. Even if there was any deficiency in the documents, the Bank should have asked the complainant or his wife in writing to remove the same. The possibility cannot be ruled out that in order to deprive the complainant of the benefits of that scheme, the photocopy of Aadhaar Card of his wife might have been misplaced by the Bank. As per copy of pass book, Ex.C-11, premium of 12/- was deducted from the account on 29.05.2015. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it was the opposite party, who was at fault in not deducting the premium or in not informing the deceased or her husband (complainant) about the non-receipt of photocopy of Aadhaar Card, in view of fact that Aadhaar Card number is duly mentioned in Column No.6 of application form Ex.C-2. Thus, it cannot be said that the deceased was not having the Aadhaar Card at the time of filling up the said application form. There was certainly deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party-Bank in not updating the data on its computer system, which prevented the complainant from getting the claim arising out of death of his wife Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the opposite party and the same is liable to be dismissed.

So far as the appeal filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of compensation is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the sum assured under the PMSBY was ₹2,00,000/- The said scheme was published by the Government of India in various newspapers and the cutting thereof has been placed on the record as Ex.C-13. The said scheme was applicable with effect from 1st of June to 31st of May every year. As already discussed above, the form, Ex.C-2, was duly filled in by the deceased, giving Aadhaar Card Number therein. The deceased died on 03.07.2016 in a roadside accident at Anandpur Sahib, which is evident from copy of FIR and Postmortem Report, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9, respectively. Thus, the deceased died within the currency of the above said policy period and the complainant was very much entitled to get claim of ₹2,00,000/- arising out of the said accident under the said policy, along with interest.

In view of our above discussion, the appeal filed by the opposite party (F.A. No.640 of 2017) is dismissed and the appeal filed by the complainant (F.A. No.744 of 2017) is allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is modified and the opposite party is directed to pay the claim amount of ₹2,00,000/- under PMSBY to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of submission of claim till realization. The opposite party shall pay the entire amount to the complainant within 45 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

In F.A. No.640 of 2017, appellant/opposite had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the said appeal. It deposited other sums of ₹1,460/- and ₹90/-, vide receipts dated 26.09.2017 and 09.10.2017, in compliance of order dated 18.09.2017. All these amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law…”

Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has argued that that the late wife of the Respondent had filled out the Consent-cum-Declaration Form for the Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojana (PMSBY), but it was incomplete, leading to the inability to process it. Consequently, no acknowledgment receipt was issued by the Petitioner. If the form had been completed properly, they would have issued the acknowledgment receipt as required. Since no insurance premium was deposited and no policy certificate was issued, the negligence lay with the late wife of the Respondent for failing to complete the necessary form; That the District Forum and the State Commission erred in awarding compensation under the PMSBY to the Respondent. It is an admitted fact that no insurance premium was deposited, resulting in the non-issuance of the policy certificate. This was due to the negligence of the late wife of the Respondent in not completing the Consent-cum-Declaration Form adequately; That the State Commission erred in its decision by allowing the Respondent's appeal solely on the ground that if there was any deficiency in the documents submitted, the Petitioner should have asked the Respondent or his late wife to rectify it. It is impractical for the Petitioner to write a letter to each customer regarding incomplete forms. Therefore, the decisions of both lower Fora are legally unsustainable.

This Commission has heard the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent, and perused the material available on record.

No written arguments were filed on behalf of the Respondent/ Complainant in both these matters in spite of specific directions passed on 2.12.2019 and thereafter on 24.8.2023.  On the last date fixed for hearing no steps were taken nor any appearance put in on behalf of the said Respondent.

It is the submission of Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner Bank that the Consent Form for deducting the premium amount towards insurance of the Respondent’s wife- Kuldip Kaur, who was the joint account holder with the Respondent, was procedurally defective.  A photocopy of the aforesaid Consent-cum-Declaration Form is Annexure-P2 on Page No. 55 of the Revision Petition.  Perusal of the same, however, goes to show that the requisite details pertaining to the said Applicant/Account Holder by way of her name, address, date of birth, telephone  number and Aadhar Card No. alongwith address of the Nominee (Respondent himself) were duly disclosed in the relevant columns prescribed for that purpose.  The aforesaid Form was submitted on 7.9.2015.

Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has asserted that such Form was not accompanied with actual Aadhar Card or its copy.

Admittedly, the Respondent and his wife were Account Holders in the Petitioner Bank while it is the conjecture of the Ld. State Commission that copy of the requisite document might itself have been misplaced by any dealing staff of the Petitioner Bank.  This Commission gives no credence on such supposition.  But it was certainly incumbent upon the Petitioner Bank to intimate the concerned Applicant about any defect/incomplete aspect of the concerned Form within a reasonable time, so as to enable her to rectify the same.  She actually had her Aadhar Card, the details of which have been disclosed in Column No. 6 of the Form, on account of which there could have been no reason for her to not provide a copy thereof.  Further, the act of the Petitioner Bank itself in having accepted the Consent-cum-Declaration Form without verifying whether it was in order or not and then not taking any action upon the same and on the other hand simply sitting quite about it for several months till the Applicant concerned herself unfortunately passed away, cannot be regarded as anything other than a deficiency in service.

However, the decision of the Ld. State Commission in awarding the entire Insurance Claim amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to the Respondent/ Complainant instead of the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded to him by the Ld. District Forum would appear to be somewhat harsh, considering that actually no premium towards the proposed Insurance of the deceased had ever been deducted.  In such circumstances, these Revision Petitions are allowed partially by setting aside the impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission awarding the total Insurance Claim of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to the Respondent/ Complainant.  Instead the original decision of the Ld. District Forum vide which a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- alone had been awarded, is affirmed.

The Petitioner Bank is, accordingly, directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount to the Respondent/Complainant alongwith accrued interest thereupon @ 7% p.a. within 02 months from the date of this order failing which any outstanding unpaid amounts shall attract interest at the rate of 9% per annum, till the date of its final realisation.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.