(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) These three appeals since arise out of the facts which have common linkage and involved common question of law are disposed off by this common order. These appeals arise out of the order passed, which is common order disposing three consumer complaints, as detailed above in the title of this order.
(2) Undisputed facts are that late Malati Nagnath Inamdar had certain deposits and Public Provident Fund Account maintained with Bank of Maharashtra at its T.M.V.Colony Branch, Gultekdi, Pune 411 037, these deposits/PPF account as under :-
Sr.No. | Particulars |
1. | Am amount of `6,00,000/- was deposited on 24/03/2005 under the Senior Citizens Scheme, 2004. |
2. | An amount of `7,00,000/- was also deposited under the same scheme on 14/07/2005. |
3. | A Public Provident Fund (PPF) Account was maintained by the deceased Smt.Malati and the amount at her credit was of `10,70,101/- together with interest thereon. The said account was opened on 19/03/1993. |
4. | Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of `80,000/- was deposited on 18/12/2002. |
5. | FDR in the sum of `70,000/- was deposited on 11/06/2003. |
(3) It is the contention of the complainants that nomination in respect of these deposits/PPF account was made by late Malati either in the name of her late daughter-Mohini, wife of complainant-Subhashchandra Arole; in the name of complainant Subhashchandra who is her son-in-law, and her minor grand children viz. complainant-Avanti and Aditya. Late Malati Inamdar died on 29/09/2006. Death was duly intimated to the bank. However, before claims could be settled, late Malati’s daughter-Mohini suffered from her last illness and died on 18/11/2006. This fact was also intimated in due course to the bank. The claims were processed for being paid to the nominees mentioned and or to legal heirs on the death of Mohini. It may be mentioned here in case of nominee late Mohini, wife of complainant-Subhashchandra Arole and mother of other complainants-Avanti & Aditya; the claims could not be settled by making payment to the nominee due to her death. The claims were ultimately settled and the payment was made on 03/05/2007. According to the complainant, there is a delay in making payment and settling the claims and therefore, three different consumer complaints were filed. The forum while disposing all three complaint and recording all these facts preferred to allow them and awarded `1,000/- only to each one of the complainant as token compensation. Not satisfied with the same, these three appeals are preferred by original complainants.
(4) Heard both the parties at length. Perused the record.
(5) The forum while dealing with the controversy exhaustively set out the facts. A brief reference is made to those facts while recounting the same in this order. Undisputedly, the claims were ultimately settled and payments were made on 03/05/2007. According to the appellants i.e. original complainants, though the cheques were ready by mid of April 2007, they were handed over to the complainants on 3rd May, 2007. This may be well explained since the payment could not be released unless the complainants completed all the formalities filling the requisite form ‘F’ under Sub-Rule 3 and 4 of Rule 4 governing the matter. This compliance was made only on 03/05/2007 and, immediately on the same day the payments were released. Under the circumstances, the forum has rightly held that the bank cannot be held responsible. The forum also rightly held that the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India had no force of law, but they are to be looked into the facts and circumstances of each case. However, in its own discretion, the forum preferred to award token compensation of `1,000/-. We may mention it that we do not subscribe to the reasoning of the forum about the contributory negligence aspect embodied in the impugned order. However, we further find that it will not be proper to disturb the amount awarded by way of token compensation of `1,000/-. Thus, there is absolutely no case for enhancing the compensation awarded by the forum. Particularly, when the payments were already made after getting completed the essential formalities. Death of Mohini also invited more formalities required to be completed since on death of Mohini (a nominee), it was not a case of getting discharge of its liability by the bank by making payment to nominee. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the appeals and holding accordingly, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal Nos.30/09, 31/09 and 32/09 stand dismissed.
2. In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
3. Inform parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 5th September, 2012.
