HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. MANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition No.1120 of 2017 was filed on 26/4/2017 challenging the impugned order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('State Commission', hereafter) dtd. 4/11/2016. Vide this order, the learned State Commission dismissed Appeal No.523 of 2015. The said Appeal was filed against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala ('District Forum', hereafter) dtd. 12/1/2015. Vide this order, the District Forum, had directed the petitioner/OP-M/s. HDFC Bank ('OP', hereafter) to pay Rs.5,00,000.00 with 9% interest p.a. from 18/9/2014 till realization along with Rs.10,000.00 as consolidated compensation towards mental tension and harassment as well as litigation expenses, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

(2.) The matter, in brief as per the Complainant, are that the son of the Respondents/ Complainants ('Complainants', hereafter), namely Shri Randhir Singh availed the services of the OP by opening one bank account bearing number 043210007591. At the time of opening the account, the OP had also issued a debit card and further informed that the debit card holders are insured for Rs.5.00 Lakh each, which is payable to his nominee in case of accidental death of the debit card holder. It was further averred that the OP did not issue any insurance policy to the life assured. The case of the Complainants is that on 30/10/2013 Shri Randhir Singh died in a road accident in the jurisdiction of PS Kanwan, District Dhar (MP) and FIR No.372 dtd. 30/10/2013 was also lodged. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant Shri Hakam Singh approached OP for lodging the claim and submitted all the documents as demanded by the OP. It was informed by the OP that the documents will be forwarded to the insured for payment of claim. The case of the Complainant is that thereafter he visited the OP so many times, but of no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the Complainants have the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Barnala. The OP in its Reply had taken the objections on the ground that the Complainant has no locus standi of cause of action to file the case and that the same is frivolous, vexatious and that District Forum had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the Complaint. On merits, it is admitted that deceased Shri Randhir Singh had a saving bank account with the OP. however, it was denied that he was ever insured for Rs.5.00 Lakh, payable in case of his accidental death. As Shri Randhir Singh was not insured with the OP, the question of any insurance cover to him by OP does not arise at all.

(3.) On appeal, the State Commission, dismissed the same. The State Commission reasoned as below: