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

Appellant/OP i.e. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through its Authorized Signatory has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by Respondent No.1/Complainant had been partly allowed.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are that Respondent No.1/Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Commission with the following prayer:

i) The OPs be directed to settle the Accidental Death Claim of ₹2 Lac along with interest from the date of death of the insured till its realization;

ii) To pay costs/damages for causing mental pain and harassment to the Complainant.

4. Upon issuance of notice in the said Complaint, the OPs had appeared before the District Commission through Counsel and filed the written replies, wherein certain preliminary objections were raised. All other averments as made in the Complaint were denied. It was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.

5. By considering the contents of the Complaint and the reply thereof filed by the OPs and also after hearing oral arguments from both the sides, the Complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 06.06.2024. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-19 is reproduced as under:

“19. Accordingly, present Complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.1 Lakh to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.”

6. Said order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the Appellant/OP No.2 by way of filing the present Appeal by raising a number of arguments.

7. There was a delay of 81 days in filing of the Appeal. Misc. Application No.1408 of 2024 was filed for condonation of delay, which was supported by an Affidavit. Said Application was allowed vide order dated 03.12.2024 and the delay in filing of the Appeal was condoned subject to costs of ₹1,500/-, which was subsequently deposited.

8. Mr. Rahul Pathania, learned Counsel for the Appellant/OP No.2 has submitted that the order passed by the District Commission is totally illegal and contrary to the law and facts. As per the averments made by the Complainant, the deceased Tilak Raj was having Saving Account with OP No.1 and had obtained the RuPay Debit Card. The insured had died in an accident and the Complainant had claimed the benefit of the Insurance Policy. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the District Commission had wrongly allowed the Complaint without appreciating the contentions of the Appellant that there was no ‘deficiency in service’ on its part. The District Commission had also ignored the Circular dated 05.04.2018 issued by the National Payment Corporation of India, as per which the benefits of the insurance in respect of the debit card were payable to the cardholder, who had performed minimum one transaction. However, the husband of the Complainant had not done any transaction within the period of 90 days prior to the date of his death. The Appellant had processed the claim of the Complainant but same was not payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy and intimation in this regard was sent to the Complainant on 21.10.2021. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the District C