HON’BLE MR. SUDEB MITRA, PRESIDING MEMBER 

Order No.: 11

Date : 24.07.2024

    By filing CC/04/2024 on 18.04.2024 the complainant Kalyani Garia prayed for directing the OP Bank’s concerned Shaldahamore Branch of Mahammad Bazar, District Birbhum to transfer all the debts and dues amounting to Rs. 14,65,782/- lying deposited with the concerned Branch of the OP Bank of CC/04/2024 in fixed deposit A/C vide A/C No. 450003030043047 and an amount of Rs. 57,18,832.58/- lying in the current account vide A/C No. 450001010040035 in the S/B account of the complainant together with all interest which are to be accrued till date of payment/transfer since Balak Nath Mondal i.e. the father of the complainant was the holder of those two accounts (current account and fixed account) both and he passed away on 26.06.2023 leaving behind the complainant has his legal heir and successor and nominee of those accounts both lying in the concerned Branch of the OP Bank. Besides the complainant had prayed for other reliefs as stated in the prayer portion of the complainant (CC/04/2024).

    By filing a spate IA No. IA/85/2024 on 05.06.2024, arising from CC/04/2024 , the complainant of CC/04/2024, Kalyani Garai has pressed for imposing stay upon the operation process of deductions caused by the OP arbitrarily from the afroestated current account and from the aforestated fixed account of Balak Nath Mondal, since deceased on 26.06.2023, lying with the concerned branch of the OP Bank of CC/04/2024 and IA/85/2024 as well, at Mahammad Bazar, Suri Birbhum,

   Heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant in respect of the submissions pressed for the IA/85/2024, seeking positive consideration in respect of her prayer categorically reflected in this IA (IA/85/2024).

    It appears from the available materials on record that the complainant/petitioner, Kalyani Garai in respect of CC/04/2024 and IA/85/2024 respectively have categorized herself as the nominee of her deceased father in respect of his aforestated two accounts, lying with the concerned branch of the OP Bank of the CC/04/2024 and IA/85/2024.

    She could not produce any documentary proof, sustainable in the eye of law to estaiblish herself to be the sole successor-in-interest of her father Balak Nath Mondal, since deceased, in respect of those two aforestated accounts, lying in the concerned Branch of the OP Bank.

    It is needless to reiterate, as it is transpiring from the prima facie documents furnished by the complainant/petitioner, Kalyani Garai and from the factual submissions of the petitioner side that against the current account of the complainant’s deceased father, late Balanath Mondal, as mentioned above loan recovery is going on and the loan taken by said Balak Nath Mondal have not yet been fully repaid to the concerned Branch of the OP Bank in this IA and complaint case respectively.

    So, if the prayer of the petitioner reflected in the instant IA, to direct the OPs’ concerned Branch to transfer the balance of the fixed account of Balak Nath Mondal is allowed in favour of the complainant’s S/B account, lying in the OP Bank together with its debts, dues, accrued and to be accrued interest pending due for recovery by OP how the loan amount so pnding due for recovery by the OP and yet to be repaid from the concerned accounts of Late Balak Nath Mondal remains unanswered totally by the complainant/petitioner, Kalyani Garai.

   Besides it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shakti Yazdani and another VS JJ Salgaonkar and others that ‘Nomination is only for convenience and does not override the law of succession’.

   Thus when the successor’s stake their claim to the property of the deceased, the nominee cannot decline and nominee of Late Balak Nath Mondal as I reiterated above, herein this case, the complainant/petitioner Kalyani Garai cannot be treated as the sole legal heir of the deceased unless it is established convincing legally appreciable document that she is the sole successor cum nominee of her father Balak Nath Mondal, since deceased barring all other in respect of his aforestated both the accounts, maintained in the concerned branch of  the OP Bank of this IA and complaint case, as well.

   In this backdrop, at this stage of the proceeding of CC/4/2024, the instant IA/85/2024 pressed by the complainant/petitioner cannot be entertained and allowed, since for the reasons as mentioned above, such prayer contained in this IA is not legally entertainable.

    Besides the complainant/petitioner could not establish by cogent and legally backed documents at this stage to hold that the concerned branch of the OP Bank of this complainant/petitioner has been making unjust deductions from the concerned account of Balak Nath Mondal, since deceased, for the purpose of loan recovery, without following relevant Banking rules and regulations maintained for that purpose.

    In the premises the aforesaid IA/85/2024 stands rejected on merit and is thus disposed of.

    Let this order be kept with the case record of CC/4/2024 accordingly, forthwith.   

   Let the parties of this Complaint Case (CC/04/2024) and IA petition (IA/85/2024) be furnished free copies of this order forthwith.