ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 20.04.2018 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.141/2017 titled Smt. Sonali Singh v. Punjab National Brief facts of Consumer Complaint: 2. Complainant Smt. Sonali Singh filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that in the first week of November 2015 complainant approached opposite party No.1 for loan purpose and Manager of opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to take Kalyani Loan under Government Scheme. It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 also informed that loan would be sanctioned only if complainant would take PNB Metlife policy of opposite party No.2 from opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that complainant was in need of loan amount and hence complainant agreed to the proposal of opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that on dated 05.11.2015 complainant provided all the requisite documents to opposite party No.1 and signed the policy and also authorized opposite party No.1 to deduct premium of Rs. 2100/- (Two thousand one hundred) from the Saving Bank Account No.671000100043990 which was opened by opposite party No.1 on dated 05.11.2015. It is further pleaded that complainant deposited amount of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) in advance as premium amount of Insurance policy. It is further pleaded that mobile number was also given to the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 on dated 05.11.2015 deducted amount of Rs. 2067/- (Two thousand sixty seven) as first installment of premium amount. It is further pleaded that on dated 14.12.2016 when complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 1 for depositing a cheque and when she perused the entries of passbook then it was observed by complainant that opposite party No.1 has debited the premium amount from the Saving Bank Account of the complainant in favour of third person Insurance policy in illegal manner. It is further pleaded that written complaint was filed before the PNB Head Office Dharamshala (HP). It is further pleaded that opposite parties harassed the complainant and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of compensation amount of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) on account of harassment and mental agony. Complainant also sought relief of continuation of insurance policy without imposing any penalty. Complainant also sought relief of payment of Rs. It is further pleaded that opposite parties harassed the complainant and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of compensation amount of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) on account of harassment and mental agony. Complainant also sought relief of continuation of insurance policy without imposing any penalty. Complainant also sought relief of payment of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) on account of litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that consumer complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No.1. It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service. It is further pleaded that complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present consumer complaint against opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that complainant did not approach the learned District Forum with clean hands. It is further pleaded that District Forum has no jurisdiction to dispose of consumer complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant met Manager of opposite party No.1 and applied for Kalyani Card Limit of Loan to the tune of Rs. 100000/- (One lac). It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 has sanctioned term loan Kalyani Card Limit to the tune of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) on dated 06.11.2015 and transferred the amount in the Saving Bank Account No.671000100043990 of complainant. It is further pleaded that insurance policy was issued by the opposite party No.2. It is further pleaded that first premium amount of insurance policy was transferred by the complainant herself on dated 05.11.2015 and for further premium amount complainant opted Auto Debit Facility through Account No.671000100043990 of PNB Yol Cantt as mentioned in the Insurance form. It is pleaded that complainant is defaulter of bank loan amount and it is further pleaded that complainant did not pay the loan amount regularly. It is further pleaded that on dated 13.06.2017 complainant paid the overdue amount. It is further pleaded that Manager of opposite party No.1 after inquiry found that four premium of insurance policy to the tune of Rs. 8447.64/- (Eight thousand four hundred forty seven rupees and sixty four paisa) was wrongly debited from the account of complainant in favour of third person. It is further pleaded that wrongly debited amount of Rs. It is further pleaded that Manager of opposite party No.1 after inquiry found that four premium of insurance policy to the tune of Rs. 8447.64/- (Eight thousand four hundred forty seven rupees and sixty four paisa) was wrongly debited from the account of complainant in favour of third person. It is further pleaded that wrongly debited amount of Rs. 8500/- (Eight thousand five hundred) was credited in the account of complainant on dated 23.10.2017 and its interest was also credited in the account of complainant. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.1 sought. 4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that PNB Metlife India Insurance Company is primarily into the business of Life Insurance duly approved by the Government of India through the Insurance Regulator IRDAI. It is pleaded that Insurance policy was issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant as per proposal form submitted by the complainant. It is further pleaded that sum assured was Rs. 250000/- (Two lac fifty thousand). It is further pleaded that complainant did not ask for cancellation of policy within free look period of fifteen days. It is further pleaded that complainant opted for auto debit facility under the policy. It is further pleaded that auto debit transaction was declined due to insufficient balance. It is further pleaded that auto debit facility got declined beyond 180 days and thereafter facility was suspended automatically. It is further pleaded that in order to create fresh auto debit facility the complainant has to submit a fresh request for auto debit. It is further pleaded that due to non-payment of renewal premium the policy of complainant was lapsed. It is further pleaded that renewal premium reminder was issued to the complainant but complainant failed to pay the renewal premium. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 5. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. 6. Learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party No.2 to reinstate the policy from the date it was terminated after taking due premium from the complainant without seeking any formalities within thirty days from the date of receipt of premium due from the complainant. 5. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. 6. Learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party No.2 to reinstate the policy from the date it was terminated after taking due premium from the complainant without seeking any formalities within thirty days from the date of receipt of premium due from the complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered complainant to pay the due premium within thirty days against proper receipt. Learned District Forum further ordered that revival charges shall be borne by opposite party No.1 because advance premium paid by complainant qua her Insurance policy was wrongly credited into third person Insurance Policy. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party No.1 would pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 7500/- (Seven thousand five hundred) to the complainant on account of mental harassment. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party No.1 would also pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) to the complainant. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission for enhancement of relief amount ordered by learned District Forum. 8. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 9. Following points arise 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: 10. Complainant filed her affidavit Ex.CW-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that in the first week of November 2015 deponent approached the opposite party No.1 for loan purpose and Manager of opposite party No.1 advised the deponent to take Kalyani Loan under Government Scheme. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party No.1 also informed that loan would be sanctioned only if complainant would take PNB Metlife policy of opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent was in need of loan amount and hence she agreed to the proposal of opposite party No.1. There is further recital in affidavit that amount of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) was sanctioned by opposite party No.1 and Insurance policy was also issued. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent deposited advance amount of Rs. There is further recital in affidavit that amount of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) was sanctioned by opposite party No.1 and Insurance policy was also issued. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent deposited advance amount of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) with opposite party No.1 for next five installments of PNB Metlife Insurance Policy. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party No.1 debited the premium amount from the saving account of complainant in favour of third person Insurance policy. There is further recital in affidavit that thereafter complaint was filed and after inquiry amount of Rs. 8500/- (Eight thousand five hundred) alongwith interest was credited in the account of complainant on dated 23.10.2017. 11. Complainant also filed affidavit of Jaspal Singh Ex.CW-2 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that complainant is wife of deponent and she obtained loan from PNB Yol Branch and Manager of opposite party No.1 insisted to obtain Insurance policy from opposite party No.2. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party No.1 debited the advance Insurance premium amount from Saving Account of complainant in favour of third person Insurance policy and thereafter complaint was filed and excess premium amount debited from the Saving Bank Account of complainant for the Insurance policy owned by third person was credited in the account of complainant on dated 23.10.2017 to the tune of Rs. 8500/- (Eight thousand five hundred). 12. Opposite party No.1 filed affidavit of Rajinder Kumar Manager PNB Branch Yol Cantt Ex.OPW1-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that complainant applied for Kalyani Card Limit of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) and same was sanctioned. There is further recital in affidavit that amount was transferred in the account of complainant vide sanction letter dated 06.11.2015. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant voluntarily obtained the insurance policy from opposite party No.2. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant did not pay the outstanding loan amount. There is further recital in affidavit that thereafter on dated 13.06.2017 complainant paid the overdue amount. There is further recital in affidavit that after inquiry it was found that advance four premium of insurance policy to the tune of Rs. 8447.64/- (Eight thousand four hundred forty seven rupees and sixty four paisa) paid by complainant qua Insurance policy was wrongly debited from the account of complainant in favour of third person. There is further recital in affidavit that after inquiry it was found that advance four premium of insurance policy to the tune of Rs. 8447.64/- (Eight thousand four hundred forty seven rupees and sixty four paisa) paid by complainant qua Insurance policy was wrongly debited from the account of complainant in favour of third person. There is further recital in affidavit that thereafter wrongly debited amount was credited in the bank account of complainant on dated 23.10.2017 and interest was also credited in the account of complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that mistake was purely clerical because Mr. Rajnish Parmar another policy holder took the policy on the same day. 13. Opposite party No.1 also filed affidavit of Smt. Anshu Rawat Ex.OPW1-2 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent was Branch Manager of PNB Yol Cantt Branch from 2015 to 2017 and now deponent is posted as Branch Manager PNB Branch Thural. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party No.1 sanctioned term loan Kalyani Card Limit to the tune of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) on dated 06.11.2015 in favour of complainant and amount was also transferred in the Saving Bank Account of the complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that first premium amount was transferred by the complainant herself on dated 05.11.2015 and for further premiums complainant opted auto debit facility. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant did not pay the loan amount regularly but on dated 13.06.2017 complainant paid the entire overdue amount. There is further recital in affidavit that after inquiry it was found that advance four premium of Insurance policy to the tune of Rs. 8447.64/-(Eight thousand four hundred forty seven rupees and sixty four paisa) paid by complainant qua Insurance policy was wrongly debited from the account of complainant in favour of third person. There is further recital in affidavit that thereafter on dated 23.10.2017 amount of Rs. 8500/- (Eight thousand five hundred) was credited in the account of complainant with interest. 14. Opposite party No.2 filed affidavit of Rajeev Sharma Ex.OPW2-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that complainant voluntarily obtained Met Life Insurance Policy and monthly premium was Rs. 2067/- (Two thousand sixty seven) and sum assured was Rs. 250000/- (Two lac fifty thousand). 8500/- (Eight thousand five hundred) was credited in the account of complainant with interest. 14. Opposite party No.2 filed affidavit of Rajeev Sharma Ex.OPW2-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that complainant voluntarily obtained Met Life Insurance Policy and monthly premium was Rs. 2067/- (Two thousand sixty seven) and sum assured was Rs. 250000/- (Two lac fifty thousand). There is further recital in affidavit that complainant did not request for cancellation of Insurance policy within free look period of fifteen days. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant opted for auto debit facility under the policy. There is further recital in affidavit that auto debit transaction was declined due to insufficient balance. There is further recital in affidavit that auto debit facility got declined beyond 180 days and thereafter facility was suspended automatically. There is further recital in affidavit that in order to create fresh auto debit facility the complainant has to submit a fresh request for auto debit. There is further recital in affidavit that due to nonpayment of renewal premium the policy of complainant was lapsed. There is further recital in affidavit that renewal premium reminder was issued to the complainant but complainant failed to pay the renewal premium. 15. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) on account of harassment and mental agony and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be allowed is decided accordingly. Shri Rajinder Kumar Manager and Smt. Anshu Rawat then Manager PNB of concerned branch have admitted that on inquiry it was found that amount to the tune of Rs. 8447.64/- (Eight thousand four hundred forty seven rupees and sixty four paisa) was wrongly debited from the saving account of complainant in favour of third person Insurance policy. It is well settled law that facts admitted need not to be proved. Laxity on the part of bank officials is proved on record. No reason assigned by opposite party No.1 as to why opposite party No.1 debited the amount from the saving account of complainant in favour of third person Insurance policy to the tune of Rs. 8447.64/-(Eight thousand four hundred forty seven rupees and sixty four paisa). Learned District Forum has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 7500/-(Seven thousand five hundred) to the complainant for harassment. 8447.64/-(Eight thousand four hundred forty seven rupees and sixty four paisa). Learned District Forum has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 7500/-(Seven thousand five hundred) to the complainant for harassment. State Commission is of the opinion that learned District Forum has not granted reasonable compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment. 16. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that learned District Forum has not granted reasonable litigation costs to the complainant and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be allowed is decided accordingly. Learned District Forum has granted litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) to the complainant which is not reasonable. State Commission is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to enhance the litigation costs awarded by learned District Forum. 17. Submission of learned advocates appearing on behalf of opposite parties that order of learned District Forum is not in accordance with law and proved facts and it is not expedients in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to enhance the compensation amount and litigation costs and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that bank institutions are expected to conduct their operation with utmost care complying with banking rules. In the present matter two Managers of opposite party No.1 have admitted in a positive manner that amount of Rs. 8447.64/-(Eight thousand four hundred forty seven rupees and sixty four paisa) was wrongly debited from the account of complainant in favour of third person Insurance premium. It is held that debiting of amount in favour of third person Insurance policy from the account of complainant is itself ipso-facto deficiency in service on the part of bank officials. It is well settled law that bank cannot take benefit of its own laxity. See 1998 (1) CPC 412 Punjab titled Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Joginder Singh Grewal. See 2004 (1) CPC 251 Punjab titled Punjab & Sind Bank v. Balbir Singh & Anr. See 1998 (1) CPC 82 Rajasthan titled Assam Import Agency Limited v. Chief Manager UCO Bank & Anr. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 18. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. v. Joginder Singh Grewal. See 2004 (1) CPC 251 Punjab titled Punjab & Sind Bank v. Balbir Singh & Anr. See 1998 (1) CPC 82 Rajasthan titled Assam Import Agency Limited v. Chief Manager UCO Bank & Anr. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 18. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. Order of learned District Forum that opposite party No.1 would pay compensation for mental harassment to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 7500/- (Seven thousand five hundred) is enhanced to Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand). Order of learned District Forum that opposite party No.1 would pay litigation costs to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) is enhanced to Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand). Remaining part of order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. File of learned District Forum alongwith 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 free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.