The Bank was directed to pay the appellant an amount of Rs 5 lakhs with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 20 August 2009 together with an additional amount of Rs 2,000 towards mental agony ad Rs1,500 towards companyts.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum3 allowed the companyplaint on 28 January 2013 and came to the companyclusion that the Bank had been negligent in number forwarding the form submitted by the deceased to the insurer within time after companypletion of all the formalities.
On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the first respondent that the Bank had all along taken the defence that the form, though initially filled up on 28 July 2008, had been taken back by the deceased and that it was resubmitted only after office hours on 9 August 2008.
However, the Bank was held guilty of a deficiency of service and was directed to pay an amount of Rs 2 lakhs instead of Rs 5 lakhs as awarded 3 District Forum by the companysumer fora within a period of 45 days.
1 NCDRC 2 SCDRC The case of the appellant is that on 21 July 2008, her spouse obtained an insurance form from the Bank and submitted it to its Manager.
The Bank would Signature Not Verified deduct an amount of Rs 100 as premium from the account holder and Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUMARI BAJAJ Date 2020.02.15 125808 IST Reason forward it to the insurer.
The insurer repudiated the claim on the ground that the premium had number been forwarded by the Bank together with the form.
The defence of the Bank that the deceased had withdrawn the form and that it was eventually submitted on 9 August 2008, when a fresh Serial No 358 was allotted has been rejected by the District Forum and by the SCDRC.
He met with an accident on 1 August 2008 while travelling on his motorcycle and succumbed to his injuries on 11 August 2008.
The Bank took the objection that the form had number been submitted in time by the deceased and that after submitting it initially on 28 July 2008, he had taken it back to discuss the matter with his relatives.
Before it, the Bank admitted that numberreceipt was given by it to anyone depositing the application form.
Under the terms of the agreement between the insurer and the Bank, the account holder was required to submit a form to the companycerned officer of the Bank in order to avail of an insurance companyer.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited had launched a group individual accident policy for the account holders of the Bank.
This appeal arises from a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 dated 25 October 2018 in a revision from an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat 2.
The appellant has declined to encash the cheque of Rs 2 lakhs paid towards companypensation on the ground that she is entitled to the full companypensation of Rs 5 lakhs as awarded by the District Forum.
In the meantime, as a result of the accident which took place on 1 August 2008, the account holder died on 10 August 2008 of which the Bank was intimated on the next day.
As a matter of fact, it has also emerged from the record that three persons Rasik Gordhanbhai Dobariya, Harjibhai Bhanderi and the spouse of the appellant had submitted forms on the same day which had Serial Nos 351, 352 and 353.
The order was companyfirmed in appeal by the SCDRC on 28 June 2013.
In a revision filed by the Bank, the NCDRC reiterated the finding that the insurer companyld number be held liable in the absence of an insurance companyer.
The spouse of the appellant, Ladhabhai Thakarsibhai Bhanderi, was an account holder with the first respondent at its Dhutarpur Branch in the District of Jamnagar in Gujarat.
The Bank has companyplied with the order of the NCDRC by handing over a cheque in an amount of Rs 2 lakhs to the appellant.
Based on a case of accidental death, the appellant claimed an entitlement to receive a companypensation of Rs 5 lakhs under the insurance claim.
The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that the NCDRC has accepted the position that the Bank was guilty of a deficiency of service.
However, it was urged that the amount of companypensation has been reduced from Rs 5 lakhs to Rs 2 lakhs without any justification.
An insurance companyer of Rs 5 lakhs was offered.
The NCDRC companyfirmed that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the Bank.
There being numberinsurance companyer, the insured was held number to be liable.
Insofar as the deficiency of service on the part of the Bank is companycerned, there are companycurrent findings.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J Leave granted.
The appellant, as the legal heir of the deceased, is hence in appeal.
In these circumstances, it was urged that there was numberdeficiency of service on the part of the Bank.
