BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.30 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 22.01.2021

      Date of Decision: 10.08.2022

Manjit Kaur aged about 52 years W/o Malwinder Singh D/o Smt. Nirmal Kaur R/o H. No.C-494, Sansarpur, Tehsil and Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Canara Bank, Branch Village Sansarpur, District Jalandhar, through its Chief Manager/Senior Manager/Branch Head.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. S. S. Khullar, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Miss Alka Marwaha, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. HarveenBhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant Manjit Kaur holding account No.2221101059380 as joint account with her mother namely Smt. Nirmal Kaur and same is operative by individual or either survivor. The complainant mother namely Smt. Nirmal Kaur holding her individual account No.2221101058631 in which complainant Manjit Kaur was duly nominated by her during her life time. The mother of the complainant Smt. Nirmal Kaur was expired on 20.07.2020. The complainant being legal heir and duly registered nominee in one account and holder of joint account operating as either survivor and being the beneficiary under the scheme is, thus consumer of the OP and very well falls within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as per provisions of the Act. During the subsisting period mother of the complainant fell ill and was admitted to Innocent Hearts Multispecialty Hospital, Jalandhar for treatment, but she could not recover from illness inspite of continued and best medical treatment provided by the complainant. The complainant being the beneficiary on account of nomination duly registered in one account and joint account holder of another account, submitted application as per prescribed performa of the OP in the month of September 2020 and thereafter also served a legal notice dated 20.11.2020 through registered post. The mother of the complainant was duly executed by her registered will dated 03.08.2016 during her life time in favour of the complainant. The complainant has been continuously approaching the OP personally, but the OP has not considered the request of the complainant, even though complainant was duly registered nominee in one account and another joint account holder, being the legal beneficiary. The OP not releases the amount of both accounts to complainant nor they issued any written letter mentioning any reason for non releasing the amount in question to the complainant. The complainant has suffered huge financial loss, great mental tension, agony and frustration due to non-payment of genuine claim of the complainant by the OP and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,49,921/- and Rs.5,43,083/- to the complainant being nominee in one account and in other as joint account holder detailed above, being legal beneficiary and further OP be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing deficiency in service and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses and to pay the interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount from 01.08.2020 till its realization.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP as a civil suit has been filed by S. Harmanpreet Singh son of Late S. Dilbagh Singh against the answering OP and Manjit Kaur etc. and the same is pending in the Civil Court. So, the answering OP cannot proceed unless and until the case is decided by the Civil Court. It is further averred that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. No cause of action accrued to the complainant against the answering OP to file the present complaint as the civil litigation is pending between Harmanpreet Singh and Manjit Kaur and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious even to the knowledge of the complainant. On merits, it is admitted that complainant is legal heir and duly registered nominee in one account and is holder of one joint account operating as either or survivor and it is also admitted that the complainant has served a legal notice dated 20.11.2020 to the OP, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has alleged the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in not releasing him the money in two account numbers i.e. account No.2221101059380 and 2221101058631. The account No.2221101059380 is a joint account with Nirmal Kaur, the deceased and the account No. 2221101058631 is the individual account of the deceased Smt. Nirmal Kaur and the complainant is the nominee. The complainant alleged herself to be the legal heir, nominee and beneficiary as per Will of Smt. Nirmal Kaur i.e. her mother after her death. It is not disputed that the son of deceased is pre-deceased and the complainant is claiming the above said amount on the basis of the Will executed in her favour by the deceased Nirmal Kaur. The complainant has proved on record the copy of the passbook of Canara Bank in the joint name of Manjit Kaur and Nirmal Kaur of account No.2221101059380. She has also proved on record the passbook of the deceased Nirmal Kaur Ex.C-2, which is in her individual name. Copy of death certificate is Ex.C-3 and the legal notice is Ex.C-4. The copy of the Will has also been produced on record by the complainant Ex.C-7.

7.                The contention of the OPs is that the present complaint is not maintainable as the grandson of Nirmal Kaur namely Harmanpreet Singh has filed a civil suit, therefore the OP cannot proceed further unless and until the case is decided by the Civil Court. This fact has been admitted by the OPs that the complainant is the legal heir and duly registered nominee in one account and is holder of one joint account operating as either or survivor of Nirmal Kaur. It has been alleged by the OP that earlier compromise was effected between the complainant and Harmanpreet Singh. The copy of the compromise deed has been produced on record by the OPs. She has further alleged that since the proceedings are pending before the Civil Court and Harmanpreet Singh has filed the suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the banks and the complainant, therefore, unless and until the rights of the parties are not determined, the OP cannot release the amount.

8.                As discussed above, it is admitted that the complainant is the legal heir and nominee of deceased Nirmal Kaur. Perusal of the copy of the Will Ex.C-7 shows that the deceased Nirmal Kaur has bequeathed her estate in the name of Manjit Kaur, her daughter. In this will, she has specifically mentioned that his son Dilbagh Singh has pre-deceased. Perusal of the proceedings before the Court and the pleadings show that Harmanpreet Singh has filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction directing the banks to release the amount of deceased Nirmal Kaur to him to the extent of half share and has also sought injunction restraining the banks from releasing the amount to Manjit Kaur. Proceedings show that the plaintiff Harmanpreet Singh was not granted interim relief of injunction at the time of filing the suit and till now the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has not been decided and the same is pending. Till today, no injunction has been granted by the Court. The OP has also produced on record the compromise deed dated 09.09.2020, but the complainant Manjit Kaur has denied this compromise deed. Earlier also Harmanpreet Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, which was dismissed as withdrawn on the ground that the matter has been compromised, but as discussed the complainant Manjit Kaur has denied the compromise. The suit was withdrawn on 22.09.2020 and again the same was filed on the same cause of action on 23.12.2020. It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, in a case titled as “Communist Party of India (Marxist) Vs. United Bank of India and Ors.” that Section 45-ZA of the Banking Regulation Act  provides for Nomination for payment of depositors money and reads as under:-

(1) Where a deposit is held by a banking company to the credit of one or more persons, the depositor or, as the case may be, all the depositors together may nominate in the prescribed manner, one person to whom in the event of the death of the sole depositor or the death of all the depositors, the amount of deposit may be returned by the banking company.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, in respect of such deposit, where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to receive the amount of deposit from the banking company, the nominee shall, on the death of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, on the death of all the depositors, become entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, of the depositors, in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner.

(3) ***

(4) Payment by a banking company in accordance with the provisions of this section shall constitute a full discharge to the banking company of its liability in respect of the deposit:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall effect the right or claim which any person may have against the person to whom any payment is made under this section.

                   As per Rule 2 of the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 1985 that Nomination in respect of deposits.-(1) The nomination to be made by the depositor, or, as the case may be, all the depositors together in respect of a deposit held by a banking company to the credit of one or more individual shall be in Form DA 1.

(2) The said nomination may be made only in respect of a deposit which is held in the individual capacity of the depositor and not in any representative capacity as the holder of an office or otherwise.

(3)***

(4) ***

(5) The cancellation of the said nomination to be made by the depositor or, as the case may be, all the depositors together, shall be in Form DA 2.

(6) A variation of the said nomination to be made by the depositor or, as the case may be, all the depositors together, shall be in Form DA 3.

(7) The said nomination shall be made in favour of only one individual. (8) (a) A nomination, cancellation of nomination or variation of nomination may be made as aforesaid at any time during which the deposit is held by a banking company to the credit of the depositor or depositors, as the case may be.

9.                It has been observed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High court that the nomination is made under Section 45-ZA of the Banking Regulation Act and Rule 2(1) of the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 1985 and in the event of the death of the depositor, the banking company would be under an obligation to return the amount of deposit to such person i.e. the nominee.

10.              In the present case, though the documents produced on record by the OP show that civil litigation is pending between Harmanpreet Singh, the grandson of the deceased and the complainant i.e. the daughter of the deceased, but no stay order has been passed by the Civil Court. As per the Act, the amount is to be returned to the nominee and that cannot be held in bank just for unlimited period waiting the decision of the Civil Court. The right of the nominee cannot be taken away. The rights of the complainant and Harmanpreet Singh are to be determined by the Civil Court, therefore the right of Harmanpreet Singh/OP and any other claimant can be protected by directing the complainant to furnish indemnity bond in the sum of Rs.15,93,004/-, with one surety in the like amount, indemnifying the claim of any other claimant/OP in future, if any, within two months. The OPs are directed to release the amount to the complainant being the legal heir, beneficiary and nominee of the deceased Nirmal Kaur on furnishing her indemnity bond. Further, OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

10.08.2022         Member                          Member           President