IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 28th day of December, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 102/2020 (filed on 05-08-2020)
Petitioner : Susan Sabu,
D/o. Late Kuruvilla M. Abraham
Thekkinkattil Puthenveedu,
Mallassery P.O Pathanmthitta
Rep. by Power of Attorney Holder
Varghese Joseph,
S/o. Cherian Jospeh,
Olikkara House, Manarcadeu P.O
Kottayam.
(Adv. K.A. Prasad)
Vs.
Opposite Party : Bank of Baroda,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Kottayam Branch – 686001.
(Adv. Thomas Kurian K.)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is the daughter of Kuruvilla. M. Abraham and Leelamma Kuruvulla who had a bank account with the opposite party vide account no. 06850100009487 and 06850100009486 respectively. Both Kuruvilla. M. Abraham and Leelamma Kuruvulla expired in an accident on 8-6-2016 at Philadelphia .PA., U.S.A. After the death of the parents, the complainant approached the opposite party demanding the payment of the amount remaining in the accounts of Kuruvilla. M. Abrham and Leelamma Kuruvulla. The complainant had given all the documents requested by the opposite party including the death certificate of both Kuruvilla. M. Abraham and Leelamma Kuruvulla, Letter of Administration issued from the office of Registrar of wills of Philadelphia, County Pennsylvania, Family membership certificate issued by the village officer of Manarcadu of Kuruvilla. M. Abraham, Family membership certificate issued by the village officer of Manarcadu of Leelamma Kuruvilla, Letter of disclaimer issued by her sister Annie Thoams and brother Abraham Kuruvilla, Consent letter issued by Annie Thomas and Abraham Kuruvilla and letter of indemnity and affidavit of the complainant and surety. Even after receiving all the records demanded by the opposite party, the opposite party did not allow the complainant to withdraw the amount. Since the parents of the complainant are customers and consumers of the opposite party, after the death their rights are passed on to the complainant and other legal heirs. There is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant to pass an order to direct the opposite party to transfer the balance amount to the account of Kuruvilla. M. Abrham and Leelamma Kuruvilla vide account no. 06850100009487 and 06850100009486 respectively to the account of the complainant with ICICI Bank Kottayam along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as the cost of this litigation.
Upon notice opposite party appeared before the commission and filed version contending as follows:
The averments in para no 1 of the complaint have to be proved by producing a legal heirship certificate. Kuruvilla. M. Abraham and Leelamma Kuruvulla were having SB accounts with the opposite party, but their son Abraham Kuruvilla was already kept as the nominee in both the SB accounts. On the death of the said account holders instead of their nominee the complainant approached the opposite party without producing the relevant documents and demanded to transfer to her bank the amounts maintained in the accounts of the deceased persons. The complainant has failed to produce the relevant documents required to be produced by the opposite party. The opposite party has certain norms and guidelines like any other bank to be followed regarding disbursing the amounts/FD to the legal heirs of such account holders at the time of their death. Presently the accounts of the above said, Kuruvilla. M. Abraham and Leelamma Kuruvilla are having a balance amount of more than 39.25 lakhs.
The opposite party has requested the complainant to produce certain documents which include, the legal heirship certificate showing the name of all legal heirs, Claim form signed by all claimants/legal heirs, indemnity bond should be signed by all claimants/ legal heirs at the bank with the proper witness, Signature of 2 sureties, in case if a nominee is already appointed such nominee should approach the bank directly or all the legal heirs should come directly to the bank, prove their identity and can claim such amount or they can authorize one among them to receive the amount. Since the nominee has not approached the bank claiming the amount, a succession certificate should be produced by the legal heirs of deceased depositors to claim the amount. The complainant has failed to produce the above documents, any claim put forwarded by the complainant without following the proper procedure and guidelines of the bank cannot be accepted by the bank. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
Power of attorney holder of the complainant filed prof affidavit in lieu of chief examination for and on behalf of the complainant and marked exhibit A1 to A 12 from the side of the complainant. Joseph Raju the chief manager of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. No documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party. Both parties filed argument notes.
On the evaluation of the complaint, version, and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
3. if so what are the reliefs and costs?
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant is the daughter of the late Kuruvilla. M. Abraham and late Leelamma Kuruvulla who had a bank account with the opposite party vide account no. 06850100009487 and 06850100009486 respectively.
As per Section 2(7) of the 2019 Act, a consumer is any person who buys goods or avails any service for consideration and includes any user except for the person who has availed such services or goods for the purpose of resale or commercial use.
The explanation to the definition specifically states that the expression “buys any goods” and “hires or avails any services” includes all online transactions conducted through electronic means or direct selling or teleshopping or multi-level marketing.
Section 2(5) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as under:
“(5) “complainant” means—
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the Central Government or any State Government; or
(iv) the Central Authority; or
(v) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest; or
(vi) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir, or legal representative; or
(vii) in case of a consumer being a minor, his parent or legal guardian;
From the aforesaid statutory position, it is clear that in case of death of the consumer, his legal heir or representative on behalf of the deceased has the right to file the consumer complaint. Relying on the above settled law, it is clear that a consumer complaint can be filed by a legal representative or legal heir of the deceased consumer
Point number 2 and 3
The specific case of the complainant is that though she had produced all documents which are required by the opposite party, the opposite party refused to withdraw the amount from the account of her diseased parents. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party contending that their son Abraham Kuruvilla was already kept as the nominee in both SB accounts. On the death of the said account holders instead of their nominee the complainant approached the opposite party without producing the relevant documents and demanded to transfer to her bank the amounts maintained in the accounts of the deceased parents
It is proved by exhibit A3 and A4 family membership certificates that Susan Babu, Annie Thomas, and Abraham Kuruvilla are the members of the family of the deceased Kuruvilla Abraham and Leelamma Abraham. It is further proved by exhibits A3 and A4 that there were no other members in the family of the deceased couple. To deal with this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to the RBI circular dated 09.06.2005, wherein the RBI has given the instructions regarding ‘Settlement of claims in respect of deceased depositors’ which is reproduce as follows:
“(A) Accounts with survivor/nominee clause: 2.1 As you are aware, in the case of deposit accounts where the depositor had utilized the nomination facility and made a valid nomination or where the account was opened with the survivorship clause (‘either or survivor’), or ‘anyone or survivor’ or ‘former or survivor’ or “latter or survivor”), the payment of the balance in the deposit account to the survivor(s)/nominee of a deceased deposit account holder represents a valid discharge of the bank’s liability provided: a. the bank has exercised due care and caution in establishing the identity of the survivor(s) / nominee and the fact of death of the account holder, through appropriate documentary evidence;
b. there is no order from the competent court restraining the bank from making the payment from the account of the deceased; and c. it has been made clear to the survivor(s) / nominee that he would be receiving the payment from the bank as a trustee of the legal heirs of the deceased depositor, i.e., such payment to him shall not affect the right or claim which any person may have against the survivor(s) / nominee to whom the payment is made.
2.2 It may be noted that since payment made to the survivor(s) / nominee, subject to the foregoing conditions, would constitute a full discharge of the bank’s
liability, insistence on production of legal representation is superfluous and unwarranted and only serves to cause entirely avoidable inconvenience to the survivor(s) / nominee and would, therefore, invite serious supervisory disapproval. In such case, therefore, while making payment to the survivor(s) / nominee of the deceased depositor, the banks are advised to desist from insisting
on production of succession certificate, letter of administration or probate, etc., or obtain any bond of indemnity or surety from the survivor(s)/nominee, irrespective of the amount standing to the credit of the deceased account holder.
(B) Accounts without the survivor/nominee clause: 2.3 In case where the deceased depositor had not made any nomination or for the accounts other than those styled as ‘either or survivor’ such as single or jointly operated accounts), banks are advised to adopt a simplified procedure for repayment to legal heir(s) of the depositor keeping in view the imperative need to avoid inconvenience and undue hardship to the common person. In this context, banks may, keeping in view their risk management systems, fix a minimum threshold limit, for the balance in the account of the deceased depositors, up to which claims in respect of the deceased depositors could be settled without insisting on production of any documentation other than a letter of indemnity”
From the aforesaid circular, it is clear that the banks are under an obligation to transfer the amount standing in the bank account of the deceased in favour of the nominee or representative after the death of the account holder.
Further, we deem it appropriate to refer to RBI circular dated 01.07.2011, where RBI has prescribed the time limit for the settlement of claims from the deceased person’s bank account. “20.6 Time limit for settlement of claims Banks should settle the claims in respect of deceased depositors and release payments to survivor(s) / nominee(s) within a period not exceeding 15 days from the date of receipt of the claim subject to the production of proof of death of the depositor and suitable identification of the claim(s), to the bank’s satisfaction. Banks should report to the Customer Service Committee of the Board, at appropriate intervals, on an ongoing basis, the details of the number of claims received pertaining to deceased depositors / locker-hirers / depositors of safe custody article accounts and those pending beyond the stipulated period, giving reasons therefore”
On perusal of the aforementioned circular, it is clear that it is the duty of a banker to settle the claims in respect of the deceased depositors and release the payments in favour of the nominee/legal heir within 15 days from the date of intimation.
Exhibit A8 and A9 are the consent letters issued by Annie Thomas and Abraham Kuruvilla respectively expressing their no objection to paying the entire balance
account of Kuruvilla M. Abraham to their sister Susan Sabu who is the complainant herein. Exhibits A10 and A11 are the letter of disclaimer executed by Annie Thomas and Abraham Kuruvilla stating that they have no objection to paying the balance amount lying in the accounts in the name of the Kuruvilla M Abraham and Leelamma Kuruvilla to Susan Sabu. In exhibits A10 and A11, they further undertake that they or their legal heirs and legal representatives will not revoke the disclaimer. Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite party bank has failed to perform its obligation to disburse the amount to the complainant following the RBI circular dated 09.06.2005 and 7-1-2011 despite the production of Exhibit A8 and A9 consent letter and A10 and A11 letter of disclaimer from the legal heirs of the late Kuruvilla M Abraham and Leelamma Kuruvilla including the person whose name is given by the late couple as the nominee to the aforesaid accounts. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and thereby caused much mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Thus we allow the complaint and pass the following order.
We hereby direct the opposite party to transfer the balance amount in the account of Kuruvilla. M. Abraham and Leelamma Kuruvilla vide account no.06850100009487 and 06850100009486 respectively to the account of the complainant with ICICI Bank Kottayam within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and to pay Rs.2500 as the cost of this litigation.
Order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order in default compensation amount will carry 9% from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of December, 2022.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of death certificate of Kuruvilla M. Abraham
A2 – Copy of death certificate of Leelamma Kuruvilla
A3 – Copy of Family membership certificate No.455/18
A4 – Copy of family membership certificate No.454/18
A5 – Copy of birth certificate of Susan Kuruvilla
A6 – Copy of birth certificate of Annie
A7 – Copy of birth certificate of Abraham
A8 – Copy of consent letter of Annie Thomas
A9 – Copy of consent letter of Abraham Kuruvila
A10 – Disclaimer certificate from Annie Thomas
A11- Disclaimer certificate from Abraham Kuruvila
A12- Marriage certificate dtd.20-07-1985 from Mar Elia Cathedral
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
