ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

Date of Institution: 10.01.2020

Date of final hearing: 23.04.2026

Date of order: 23.04.2026

First Appeal No.26 of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:-

1. Corporation Bank, Near Neelam Chowk, Railway Road, NH-5, Faridabad, District Faridabad through its Manager.

2. Corporation Bank, Corporate office, Mangal Devi Temple Road, Pandeshwar, Mangalore (Karnataka).

.....Appellants

Versus

Seeta Devi (now deceased) wife of Sh. Shankar Shah through her following LRs:-

i. Naresh Chand, Son

ii. Dinesh Chand Son

iii. Prabhat Son

iv. Prakash Son

All residents of House No.1017, Azad Nagar, Sector-24, NIT, Faridabad (Haryana).

…..Respondents

CORAM:

SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER

Present: None for the appellants.

Mr. Neetish Handa, Legal Aid counsel for the legal heirs of respondent.

ORDER

PER: S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER

The present appeal No.26 of 2020 has been filed against the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No. 484 of 2018, which was partly allowed.

2. Factual matrix : Pratap Chand was maintaining and running a bank account No. 047900101018408 in Corporation Bank, Neelam Chowk, Faridabad Branch from last 5-6 years against which a VISA ATM bearing No. 4027 4104 7913 0504 was also issued to him by Corporation Bank. Account holder Pratap Chand died in a road accident on 24.11.2017. According to the rules, the person who holds an ATM card dies in an accident, the nominee of the ATM card holder will be provided insurance on behalf of the bank. When complainant approached the bank employee and Manager about the insurance of the ATM card from the bank, the bank personnel refused to issue any insurance like this, whereas all the news channels, newspaper, interest etc. showed that when a person’s ATM issued by Bank the ATM holder automatically gets his insurance. As per plea, the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service.

3. Upon notice, OPs raised their contest. In their defense; it is pleaded that Sh. Praptap Chand was having saving account No. 047900101018408 with OP-bank and as per banking norms and requirement of the account holder ATM card bearing No. 4027 4104 7913 0504 was provided to Sh. Pratap Singh. The said normal saving account was opened on 01.01.2010 and the ATM card obtained by late Sh. Pratap Chand was a VISA card, which was not eligible for any insurance coverage. Hence the nominee of Sh. Pratap Chand was not eligible for any insurance claim. Vide circular dated 26.02.2011 OP-bank had withdrawn the Personal Accident Insurance Cover w.e.f. 01.04.2011 for debits cards, campus cards, LIC Credit cards and it was also stated that for cardholders who had already been covered or will become eligible for the cover as on 31.03.2011, the insurance cover will be in force till its expiry i.e. one year from the start date of the policy or renewal. The said circular was displayed on the notice board of every branch of OPs. As per plea, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4. Parties to lis led their respective evidence oral as well as documentary. On analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission, Faridabad has partially allowed the complaint vide order dated 29.11.2019, which is as under:

“The complaint is partially allowed. The complaint has filed by Naresh Chand brother of the deceased. The only one brother is a minor one who can presume as dependent on his brother. Hence the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- in lump sum as compensation to Prakash S/o Shri Hari Shankar Shah only. As per Aadhar card placed on file his date of birth is 20.02.2003.”

5. Feeling aggrieved; OPs/insurer have filed this appeal.

6. There is no representation on behalf of appellants since from 16.05.2024. Today, also none has appeared on behalf of appellants. We have heard the learned counsel for