KAVITA SHARMA vs American Express Bank Limited And Anr.

IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 22.12.2008 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula dismissing appeal against the order dated 15.10.2007 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

MAJOR Sanjay Sharma, husband of the petitioner/complainant was issued a credit card which was valid upto October, 2006, by respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1 -bank. Card provided an insurance cover of Rs. 2,00,000 by respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 -Insurance Company on the death of the card holder. Sanjay Sharma died on 19.7.2004 in an accident. Claim for Rs. 2,00,000 made by the petitioner was declined by the respondents. Bank alleged that the card was cancelled on 18.5.2004 due to non -payment of Rs. 878.34 for more than 90 days by the cardholder. Complaint by the District Forum and appeal by the State Commission, on contest, were decided in the manner noticed above.

WE have heard Mr. Ashish Verma for the petitioner and Mr. Anand K. Mishra for respondent No. 2. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 despite service of notice. Submission advance by Mr. Verma is that full amount of Rs. 860 was paid by the cardholder before his death on 3.6.2004 after having conversation with the credit card officials of the bank. Terms and conditions of the credit card membership (copy at pages 24 to 25) do not provide that after cancellation, reinstatement of card is to be made only on the request of the cardholder. Reinstatement of the card is automatic after receipt of the amount due. In support of this submission, our attention has been invited to the statements of account issued by respondent No. 1 -bank at pages 32,33 and 34 of the paper book. Statement of account at page 32 is dated 18.5.2004. It is mentioned in this statement that card has been cancelled and the closing balance of Rs. 878.34 be paid immediately. In the statement of account at page 33 dated 19.6.2004 a sum of Rs. 860 is shown to have been received and closing balance of Rs. 31.15 is shown including amount of Rs. 12.81. If the amount of Rs. 860 paid is deducted from the said amount due of Rs. 878.34, the balance would come to Rs. 18.34. Statement of account at page No. 34 is dated 18.8.2004 and closing balance therein is shown as 31.15 as also shown in the statement of account at page 33. Portion of both these statements of account on which strong reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner reads thus: "This statement is for information only. No payment is required. Thank you for using American Express."

PETITIONER has filed the copy of the order passed by Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh dated 21.8.2006. This would show that the petitioner had earlier approached the Ombudsman of the Insurance Company for payment of the insured amount of Rs. 2,00,000. As may be seen from the said order the short payment of Rs. 18.34 and interest charges of Rs. 12.81 were reversed by the bank on 25.8.2004 to nullify the account. Aforesaid plea of full payment of Rs. 860 after having conversation with the credit card officials has been taken in para No. 16 of the complaint. To be only noted that the name of the credit card officials with whom the deceased had conversation regarding payment of the said amount towards full payment is not disclosed in para No. 16. This plea seems to have been taken to cover up the payment of Rs. 18.34. As is manifest from said statement of account dated 18.5.2004, the card was cancelled and cardholder was asked to pay the balance amount of Rs. 878.34 immediately still part payment of Rs. 860 leaving a balance of Rs. 18.34 was made on 3.6.2004. In this backdrop, it is not open to argue that if in the two statements of account at pages 33 and 34 it had not mentioned that no payment is required, the cardholder may have paid the nominal balance amount of Rs. 18.34 before his death. The fact remains that on 19.7.2004 this amount was due from the cardholder and credit card stood cancelled. Having reached this conclusion we need not examine the other leg of submission referred to above advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner is not entitled to the said insured sum of Rs. 2,00,000. Revision petition is dismissed being without any merit. No order as to cost.