Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/42/2020

Bighneswar Kumar Shroff, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-The Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

15 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 42/2020

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Bighneswar Kumar Shroff,

Aged about 38 years, R/O-Sunaripara, Barabazar,

PO/PS- Khetrajpur

Dist:- Sambalpur, Odisha        , 768003                        ...………..Complainant

                                       Versus

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of  India

Khetrajpur Branch, Sambalpur, Office At/PO/Ps- Khetrajpur

Sambalpur-768003, Odisha.

2. The Zonal Manager, State Bank of  India

Plot No. 89/3951 & 899 Unit No-15

Ainthapali, Dist- Sambalpur-768004

3. The General Manager, State Bank of  Bank,

Odisha Circle, 111/1, Pandit Jawaharlal Neheru Marg,

Bhubanewar , Odisha 75001

4. The Chairman, State Bank of India,

Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan.

Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021                           …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-         Self
2. For the O.P.No.1                                      :-         Sri. A.K.Nayak
3. For the O.P. No.2,3&4                :-         Ex-parte

 

Date of Filing:30.12.2020,Date of Hearing :20.09.2022, Date of Judgement : 15.11.2022

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that his father Yugal Prasad Shroff @Yugal Kishore Prasad Passed away on 28.06.2020 at VIMSAR, Burla and was having his pension account with O.P. No.1 SB A/C No. 10533411206. The O.P. No.1 was intimated on 15.07.2020. After getting the death certificate the Complainant visited the O.P. No.1and requested to settle the death claim in his favour as nominee in the said account. The O.P. No.1 denied the nomination without verifying the SB A/C opening form and nominee particulars including updated KYC particulars. On 27.11.2020 the complainant and his sisters jointly filed an application  before the O.P. No.1 to  provide the information and copy of SB A/C opening form and nominee particulars and to disburse the amount within a stipulated period. The O.P. NO.2,3 & 4 are the administrative authorities of O.P. No.1. For deficiency in service and being harassed the Complainant filed this complaint.
2. The O.P. No.1 after appearance in his version submitted that there is no deficiency in service of the O.P. No.1. The allegations of the complainant are denied. There was no any nomination of the deceased. The Complainant was advised to apply in the prescribed form for settlement of death claim along with death certificate and legal-heir certificate along with other required declarations. The Complainant and his sisters made application to the O.P. No.1 to supply information but personal information can not be provided as per RBI guidelines. On 15.01.2021 the complainant made application in prescribed form and within 12 days the death claim was settled. The Complainant has received Rs. 16,74,026.87 settled amount. Accordingly, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Due notice has been issued to O.P. No. 2, 3 & 4 and after receipt also they did not turn up, who are the authorities of O.P. No.1. The Complainant has not issued any notice for the alleged harassment.
4. Perused the documents filed by the complainant and saving Depost opening form of the deceased Yugal Prasad Shroff dated 17.02.1986.
5. During the course of arguement the complainant submitted that at the time of death of Yugal Prasad Shroff the family had no any other source of income as the complainant being unemployed. Several time the O.P. No.1was requested to disburse the amount and on 27.11.2020 wrote an application with his sisters. The O.P. No.1 intentionally not produced the nomination form. For more than one year and six month time has been taken by the O.P. No.1 for settlement of death claim. The version has not been filed within 45 days. The Complainant filed the Gazette notification of the RBI dated 1^st July 2015. The O.P. has not strictly adhered to the notification. During Covid-19 period for non-co-operation of the O.P. No.1 the complainant harassed and faced financial hardship. The complainant admitted that the claim amount has been paid by the O.P. No.1 after furnishing proper surety.

Advocate for O.P. submitted that there was no any nomination in the S.B. A/C and as claim amount has been disbursed there is no any deficiency on the part of the O.P.s.

6. After careful analysis of the documents filed by the parties it reveals that the A/C was opened on 17.02.1986 and no any nomination has been made in the application. The Complainant failed to establish that he is the nominee in the account. The onus lies on the Complainant to show that his deceased father nominated him in the account. The second point of consideration is that on 15.07.2020 and 27.11.2020 application have been made to the O.P. No.1 for settlement of the account. The Complainant failed to file any copy of filled up prescribed form issued by the O.P. No.1. When the Complainant submitted the application on 15.01.2021 thereafter the O.P. No.1 as per prescribed  form sort for surety bond, legal-heir certificate, death certificate etc. and disbursed the amount in absence of nomination. Further the complainant admitted the fact of settlement of the claim and disbursement in his favour. The Guideline of the R.B.I. is of 2015, the Complainant not filed any previous circulars as the account opened in 1986. Lastly consumer complaints are not strict to the procedural laws Commission has given opportunity to defend the case although after statutory period only 45 days later version has been accepted.

From the supra discussion the commission found no any deficiency on the part of O.P. No.1 and accordingly the order is passed:

6698606.  

The Complainant is dismissed on contest. The parties are to bear their own cost.

Order pronounced in open court on this 15^th Nov. 2022.

Supply free copies to the parties.