STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 29.01.2025 Date of Decision : 12.01.2026 PNB Metlife India Insurance Company, 1^st Floor, Techniplex-1, Techniplex Complex, Off Veer Savarkar Flyover Goregaon (West) Mumbai-400062, through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Devendra Verma, Manager Legal, PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, available at Unit No.302, Tower-3, World Mark, Maidewas Road, Sector 65, Gurugram (Haryana)

…..Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus

1. Manju Singh wife of Late Sh. Charanjit Singh ;

2. Yasmeeta D/o Late Sh. Charanjit Singh ;

3. Mehul Singh Rana S/o Late Charanjit Singh :

4. Gurmanpreet Singh S/o Late Sh. Charanjit Singh (minor son under the guardianship of his mother Manju Singh)

5. Dhanraji W/o Sh. Jagroop Singh ;

All R/o H.No.424, Bombay Street, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

..…..Respondents/Complainants

6. Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, BGIMT Branch, Sangrur, through its Branch Manager (Bhai Gurdas College, Sangrur).

…..Respondent No.6/Opposite Party No.1 First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sangrur in Consumer Complaint No.354 of 2019.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Present:-

For the Appellant : Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate For Respondents No.1-5 : None For Respondent No.6 : None

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-

The Appellant/Opposite Party No.2, i.e. PNB Metlife India Insurance Company, through its Manager Legal has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sangrur (in short the “District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.354 of 2019, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been allowed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case of the Complainant which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are that the Complainant being aggrieved by the action of the OPs had filed the Complaint before the District Commission with the following prayer :-

“(i) The opposite parties may kindly be directed to release the sum assured i.e. Rs.18,70,000/- after adjusting the balance loan amount alongwith interest @18% per annum and other benefits from the date of death of Charanjit Singh ;

(ii) The opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainants ; and (iii) The opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses And any other relief to which the Complainants are found to be entitled may also be granted

3. Upon issuing notices in the said Complaint to the OPs, they had appeared through Counsel and filed reply/written versions. Certain preliminary objections were raised and other averments made in the Complaint were controverted.

4. By considering the averments made in the Complaint and reply thereof as well as the oral arguments raised by the Counsel for the parties and the documents available on record, the District Commission had allowed the Complaint. The relevant part of the order as mentioned in para 12 of the order dated 22.11.2024 is reproduced as under :-

“12. In view of our above discussion, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2 and accordingly, we direct OP number 2 to pay to OP number 1 the sum assured amount i.e. Rs.18,70,000/- for the adjustment of the remaining balance loan amount. We further direct OP number 1 that after the adjustment of the loan amount if any amount is remained left then the same shall be distributed amount/between the compl