H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA First Appeal No. : 233/2024 Date of Presentation: 09.10.2024 Order Reserved on: 19.11.2025 Date of Order: 26.11.2025 _____

Sumitra Devi Oraon, W/o late Shri Joginder Oraon, R/O Visht Niwas, Lower Panthaghatti, Shimla-171009, H.P.

……..Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1. Manager, Bank of India, The Mall, Shimla-171001.

2. Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India Building (IV Floor), Sector-17, Chandigarh.

....…Respondents/Opposite Parties.

Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Ms. Yogita Dutta, Member. Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellant: Mr. Sukh Dev Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1: Mr. Suresh Kumar Madhania, Advocate.

For Respondent No.2: None.

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President

O R D E R

Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated

03.09.2024 passed by Learned District Consumer (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)

Commission, Shimla, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No.4/2023 whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

Brief facts of Case

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant’s husband had a saving bank account No.790210110006208 with the respondent No.1/Bank of India. Husband of the complainant died on 30.10.2020 who was the member of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) and contributory to the said scheme. Intimation of accidental death of husband of the complainant was given to the opposite party No.1/bank within 30 days and submitted claim forms to the opposite party No.1/bank but till date no payment on account of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) has been received by the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the present complaint has been filed.

3. The complaint so filed has been opposed by the opposite parties by filing separate replies. Opposite party No.1/Bank of India in its reply has alleged that complainant was asked to supply the requisite documents but the complainant supplied the documents through WhatsApp which were not legible. Thereafter, the complainant again asked to supply the legible copies of documents but she failed to supply the same till date, therefore, the claim of the complainant could not be forwarded to the insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/bank. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that opposite party No.2/Ombudsman has not entered into any banking transactions with the complainant. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the replying opposite party.A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made. 5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.

8. Arguments heard on behalf of the parties and perused the record of the case carefully.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that the amount under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) has been received by the complainant. He has submitted that complainant is also entitled for compensation, litigation cost and interest from the opposite parties.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondent No.1/bank has submitted that complainant had not