ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President. —Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 08.06.2016 passed by learned District Forum Solan in consumer complaint No.06 of 2016 title Vidya Sagar Kamal v. Punjab National Bank. Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant Vidya Sagar filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 before learned District Forum pleaded therein that complainant lost his son in road accident at Chandigarh on dated 10.04.2014. It is pleaded that son of complainant was having accidental death ATM card issued by opposite party which was insured for Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand). It is pleaded that complainant along with Senior Manager of Bank Mr. R.K. Attri visited office of opposite party and informed about demise of his son. It is further pleaded that complainant informed opposite party that death certificate would be submitted after receipt of the same from competent authority. It is pleaded that complainant received death certificate after 15.07.2014. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant preferred claim but no response was received from opposite party. It is pleaded that thereafter complainant approached Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Punjab National Bank Delhi who informed that case was rejected as time barred case. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) relating to ATM card. In addition complainant sought relief of Rs.200000/- (Two lac) on account of mental and physical harassment. In addition complainant also sought litigation costs. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that present complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that complainant has no cause of action to file complaint and it is further pleaded that complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant has suppressed material facts from Forum. It is pleaded that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. It is further pleaded that present complaint is filed in violation of terms and conditions of monetary compensation scheme for the family of active PNB debit card users in case of accidental death. It is admitted that ATM card of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand) was issued under monetary compensation scheme. It is denied that complainant informed opposite party about demise of his son. It is admitted that ATM card of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand) was issued under monetary compensation scheme. It is denied that complainant informed opposite party about demise of his son. It is also denied that complainant informed opposite party that death certificate was not received by complainant. It is also denied that opposite party informed complainant that there was no time limit to submit claim. It is pleaded that complainant has failed to abide terms and conditions of monetary accidental scheme and has not lodged claim within sixty day of death of card holder. It is pleaded that claim of complainant was rejected on the ground of lapse of time. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum allowed complaint filed by complainant and ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand) to complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment. Learned District Forum also ordered opposite party to pay Rs.3000/- (Three thousand) to complainant as compensation for harassment. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite party to pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Two thousand). 5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite party filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and we have also heard respondent and perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 8. Complainant filed affidavit Ex.CW-1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent lost his son in road accident at Chandigarh on dated 10.04.2014. There is further recital in affidavit that son of deponent was having ATM card which was insured for Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand). There is recital in affidavit that deponent personally along with Senior Manager of bank Mr. R.K. Attri visited branch office of opposite party and informed about demise of his son. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent also informed opposite party that since death occurred at Chandigarh death certificate would be produced after receiving the same from competent authority. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent received death certificate after 15.07.2014 and thereafter deponent preferred claim. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent also informed opposite party that since death occurred at Chandigarh death certificate would be produced after receiving the same from competent authority. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent received death certificate after 15.07.2014 and thereafter deponent preferred claim. There is recital in affidavit that complainant was informed that case stood rejected due to lapse of time. There is further recital in affidavit that death certificate was signed by competent authority on dated 11.07.2014. 9. Complainant also filed affidavit of Vakil Singh Senior Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank Ex. CW-2 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is Senior Branch Manager in Punjab National Bank. There is recital in affidavit that deponent along with Shri S.S. Negi Senior Branch Manager in PNB Bypass Solan went to the house of deponent situated at Bypass Kather on dated 18.10.2015. There is recital in affidavit that S.S. Negi requested deponent to sign one letter which was handwritten by Shri S.S. Negi himself and no date was mentioned on the same. There is further recital in affidavit that Shri S.S. Negi requested deponent to sign letter otherwise he would be punished by the department under banking rules. There is further recital in affidavit that under compelling circumstances the said letter was signed by deponent. 10. Opposite party filed affidavit of Shri S.S. Negi Senior Manager posted in Punjab National Bank Bypass Road Kather Ex.OPW-1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant''s son was having ATM card which was classic master debit card under the monetary compensation scheme for Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand) subject to terms and conditions. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant did not inform about the demise of his son and also did not inform that death certificate would be submitted at a later stage after receipt of death certificate from competent authority. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has failed to abide terms and conditions of monetary accidental scheme and there is further recital in affidavit that complainant should have lodged claim within sixty days from the date of death of card holder. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant did not visit office of opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party is not liable to pay to complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant did not visit office of opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party is not liable to pay to complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has suppressed material facts from District Forum. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party. 11. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Avanish Dwivedi Manager posted in Punjab National Bank Bypass Road Kather Ex.OPW-2 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is working as Manager at Punjab National Bank Bypass Road Kather Tehsil and District Solan H.P. There is further recital in affidavit that on 29.11.2015 complainant Vidya Sagar visited bank and inquired about status of claim. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant was informed about repudiation of claim on the ground of lapse of time. There is further recital in affidavit that Senior Branch Manager Shri S.S. Negi did not visit house of Vakil Singh for signing any letter. There is further recital in affidavit that letter was signed by complainant at branch office. 12. Submissions of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that claim was not submitted within sixty days and was rightly repudiated by opposite party as per terms and conditions of scheme is decided accordingly. In the present case it is proved on record that death certificate of Rahul Kamal was received by complainant on 11.07.2014 from Municipal Corporation Chandigarh. As per terms and conditions of monetary compensatory scheme for the family of active PNB debit card users in case of accidental death claim should be submitted for payment of compensation to the base branch within sixty days which has been revised to 150 days at base branch w.e.f. 01.11.2015. The revised claim guidelines would be applied to accident occurred after 31.10.2015. There is also recital in the guidelines that accident which occurred within the geographical territory of India would be considered and as per scheme application must be accompanied with following documents:- (i) Copy of FIR (ii) Medical report/postmortem report (iii) Copy of death certificate issued by competent authority (iv) Copy of driving licence in case insured person was driving at the time of accident. State Commission is of the opinion that copy of death certificate should be accompanied with claim form. State Commission is of the opinion that copy of death certificate should be accompanied with claim form. It is proved on record that Senior Branch Manager of PNB opposite party vide letter dated 03.09.2015 Annexure R-3 recommended the case of complainant to Head Office for condoning delay in filing claim application. 13. In the present case complainant Vidya Sagar is old person aged 59 years. Keeping in view fact that complainant is aged about 59 years and keeping in view fact that death certificate was received by complainant after 15.07.2014 and also keeping in view fact that Senior Branch Manager of opposite party has recommended case for condonation of delay in filing claim application, State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to interfere in the order of learned District Forum on the principle of natural justice and in the ends of justice. Affidavit filed by complainant is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of State Commission. In view of above-stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2: Final Order 14. In view of findings upon point No.1 appeal is dismissed. Order of Learned District Forum is affirmed. Recommendation letter for condonation of delay dated 03.09.2015 Annexure R-3 issued by Senior Branch Manager PNB Bypass Solan H.P. placed on record will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.