The court upheld the complainants' entitlement to the accidental claim amount based on the terms and conditions of the debit card insurance coverage, which required a transaction to be performed within 90 days prior to the accident.

ORDER

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the opposite party/appellant is directed against the order dated 21.11.2019, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case No. 268/2018, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by complainants/respondents.

2. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant’s son late Neeraj Sharma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) died in a motor accident on 24.5.2017. The deceased was an account holder in the opposite party/appellant-HDFC Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’). He had opened A/c No. 50100064594445 on 10.2.2015. An ATM card was also issued to the deceased. The Bank had disclosed that the subject ATM card carries an accidental claim cover of Rs.5 lakhs. After the death of the deceased, the complainants/respondents approached the Bank seeking claim amount but the same was denied. Therefore, alleging deficiency against the Bank, they approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The Bank resisted the complaint stating that a debit card was issued to the deceased after an account was opened by him with the Bank. The said debit card was having personal accident insurance coverage, which was subject to terms and conditions. As per ‘National Payments Corporation of India’ circular, a transaction was to be carried out under the subject card, prior to 90 days of death of the account holder. In the instant matter no such transaction was carried out, therefore, the complainants/respondents are not entitled to any relief.

4. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Bank to pay the accidental claim amount of Rs.1 lakh to the complainants/respondents with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 17.9.2018 till payment, compensation of Rs.2,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/- has also been awarded. The aforesaid order is directed to be complied with, within a period of one month.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the Bank argued that the District Commission has gone against the relevant provisions while passing the impugned order. It has been overlooked by the District Commission that ‘no point of sale’ transaction was carried out with respect to the debit card issued to the deceased, prior to 90 days of his death. The impugned order is, therefore, not sustainable and he argued that the same be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the complainants/respondents supported the impugned order and argued that the evidence available on record establishes the fact that the transaction was caused out and accordingly the District Commission has awarded the claim amount to the complainants/respondents.

8. We find that the Bank, before the District Commission has annexed the terms and conditions issued by the ‘National Payments Corporation of India’- ‘Exhibit-D-1’, wherein it is mentioned that the benefits of insurance will be available to the card holder who have performed minimum one successful financial or non-financial transaction at any channel both intra and inter bank i.e on us and off us (ATM/MicroATM/POS/e- com/Business correspondent of the Bank at locations by any payment instrument). The transaction in the specified terms and conditions are to be carried out within 90 days prior to the date of accident, including accident date for Non-Premium card holders. In the instant matter the pass book of Bank, which is available on record, indicates that withdrawal of Rs.100/- was done on 14.4.2017 (page-33).

9. In this view of the matter, the objection raised by the Bank in this appeal is not sustainable.

10. In wake of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any illegality in the District Commission’s conclusions regarding complainants/respondents’ entitlement for obtaining insurance claim. The District Commission considering the facts and circumstances of the matter has r