CITI BANK vs Mohd Ayub

THE appellant, Citi Bank Card Centre was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

VERY briefly stated the facts leading to filing the complaint were that one Mr. Mohd. Ayub, the first complainant was the primary card holder of the Citi Bank Card and one Mr. Mohd. Usman was the additional card member as per material on record (appearing at page 28 of the paper book ). Additional card holder Mr. Mohd. Usman unfortunately died in a road accident in the night of 15th and 16th March, 2002. Since as a card holder, the complainants were the beneficiary of the accident insurance, a claim was preferred by the primary card holder on the said demise of his brother but it was not agreed as according to the appellant, the ''add-on card holder'' was not entitled to claim any compensation under the provisions of the contract other than Rs. 2 lakh, for which policy had been given by the New India Assurance Company. When the matter was not getting settled, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties, directed the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 23 lakh along with interest @ 6% p. a. and the third O. P. was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 2 lakh along with interest @ 6% together with cost of Rs. 2,000 payable by the appellants/opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us. Notice was issued to the respondents. Since no one is forthcoming, they were served through publication yet no one appeared, hence they are proceeded ex parte.

We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at some length and perused the material on record. The basic facts are not in dispute that the deceased Mr. Mohd. Usman was an additional card-holder. What we have to look in is whether the additional card holder would be entitled to the amount of Rs. 25 lakh? As per material on record, and not rebutted, the basic cover available to the card holder was Rs. 2 lakh which was the undertaking of the Citi Bank to their card holders, whereas for ''citi-Bank Suraksha'' and ''citi Suraksha Credit Shield'' there was a tie-up by the appellant with Royal Sundaram and Tata AIG Life respectively. Under Citi Bank Suraksha from Royal Sundaram, the personal accident insurance cover was Rs. 25 lakh and under Citi Bank Suraksha Card Shield from Tata AIG Life, the insurance cover was Rs. 2. 5 lakh in the case of death or total and permanent disablement. The arrangement has been produced before us in the form of brochure in which the agreement between the Citi Bank on ''the one hand and Tata AIG/royal Sundaram on the other, clearly stipulate under the heading the scope and extent of coverage'' that the ''coverage applies to primary card holder only. It does not apply to additional card members'' (emphasis supplied ). We have also seen policy issued by Tata AIG and Schedule attached therein, wherein it is clearly stipulated that the beneficiary could be only ''principal Card Account Holder. . . . '' In view of this, we are left in no doubt that the benefit under the arrangement between Tata AIG/royal Sundaram could go only to the primary card holder. Since the deceased Mohd. Usman was additional card holder, he could not be granted the benefit under the above coverage, in view of which, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission, which is set aside. Appellants cannot be held liable for any payment in terms of policy as discussed above.

THE New India Assurance Company had already shown its willingness to pay Rs. 2 lakh as directed by the State Commission along with interest mentioned there in the order of the State Commission in sub-para 3 of para 13. The complainant would be free to proceed against respondent No. 2/o. P. 3 for getting the order executed as stated above under Sections 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in case this has not already been executed. The Appeal stands allowed in above terms. Appeal allowed.