Order-11.
Date-10/07/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the Complainant in short is that she is a citizen of India having permanent residence at Baranagar, Kolkata-700 036. The brother of the Complainant namely, Partha Biswas, since deceased had two Bank Accounts with Citi Bank, Chowringhee Branch being Account Nos.5660167333 and 5024322337. Partha Biswas, since deceased, during his life time was operating the said account. He died on 01.09.2014 leaving behind the Complainant as only legal heir and Partha Biswas has died leaving no other legal heir. The petitioner is entitled to get the amount lying in those two accounts subject to production of Succession Certificate.
The Complainant on 23.06.2016 served two letters upon the Bank with copy of death certificate of late Partha Biswas requesting to issue Pass Book of those two Bank Accounts so that the Complainant could obtain Succession Certificate from the Competent Authority.
OP-2 despite receiving the letters did not response or issue any Pass Book in the name of Complainant. On 25.06.2016 the Complainant again served two letters upon OP-2 through her Advocate for issuance of the Pass Book mentioning the last balance amount. On 12.08.2016, almost after a gap of 02 months, OP-1 wrote a letter to the Complainant intimating that “Statement of the Customer Account is provided only to the Account Holder or any person authorized by the Account Holder or under specific direction of an appropriate Court Order”.
The Letter of Authorisation of the Account Holder does not arise because the Account Holder had already died and the Bank is aware of the same. On 30.6.2016 the Complainant again sent legal notice to OP-2 requesting to furnish the last balance amount of both the Accounts as the same is required to obtain Succession Certificate from the competent Court of Law. But OPs have not provided the same to the Complainant. It is alleged that the OPs have been harassing the Complainant in the name of Privacy and Confidentiality and for which she is unable to file the ’Succession Case’ before the appropriate Court of Law. It is alleged that the OPs are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant and are avoiding and neglecting to supply and or provide Pass Book of the Account Holder of deceased Partha Biswas. It is alleged that the Complainant on several occasions being a woman went to the Branch of OP-1 and reuested to supply the Pass Book of her deceased brother being the Account Holder of the OPs, but they refused. Hence this case.
OPs have contested the case in filing w.v. contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in fact or on law. It is stated that OP-1 is a Bank Institution and governed by the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. OP-2 is the Manager of one of the Branches of OP-1. It is stated that the Complainant had issued two separate letters dated 23.06.2016 informing the OP Bank about the demise of the Account Holder of one Partha Biswas, since deceased annexing a photocopy of death certificate. The OPs also received two legal notices. OP Bank vide letter dated 12.08.2016 had categorically mentioned requirement of a Court Order for issuing Account details or even taking steps for settlement of balance in the Account in favour of the Complainant. The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant had issued two letters dated 30th August,2016 pertaining to the aforesaid Account of Late Partha Biswas, wherein the name of the deceased is mentioned as Proboth Kumar Biswas and thereafter the Complainant filed the present case. It is stated that the Complainant is not a consumer of OP Bank and Complainant is merely a third party seeking information about a constituent of the OP Bank, which the OP Bank is not obliged to provide as it is bound by the guidelines on confidentiality of information. It is denied that there is no deficiency in service of service of the OP Bank as no service have been offered to or availed by the Complainant. It is also stated that OP cannot issue pass books for the Complainant to obtain Succession Certificate from the competent Court of Law. It is denied that Complainant is being harassed in the name of maintaining privacy and confidentiality of the Account Holder. These OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether OPs are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant?
- Whether Complainant can be called a ‘Consumer’ under the OP Bank?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get a decree as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have perused that the documents on records i.e. photocopy of Votar Identity Card in the name of the Complainant, photocopy of PAN Card, photocopy of letter dated 23.06.2016 addressed to the OP Bank, photocopy of Pass Port, photocopy of letter dated 23.06.2016, photocopy of death certificate of Partha Biswas, photocopy of legal notices by the OP Bank, photocopy of legal notice dated 30.08.2016 and other documents on record.
It appears that the Complainant claims herself to be the brother of one Partha Biswas, since deceased being the account holder with the OP having Account Nos.5024322337 and 5660167333. The said account were opened by the said Partha Biswas since deceased. The Complainant sent legal notices as well as letters on different dates to the OPs for intimating her the last balance amount lying in the account of her deceased brother for obtaining Succession Certificate from the Competemt Court of Law. OPs did not entertain on the ground that OP Bank is bound by the guidelines laid down by the Reserve Bank of India on confidentiality of information. Complainant has stated that she is the only legal heir of deceased Mr. Partha Biswas. We are afraid no relationship certificate or document from any competent authority and or local Councillor of Municipality is filed by the Complainant to establish that she is the only legal heir of deceased Partha Biswas or elder sister of the deceased. We are afraid no heirship certificate or document from any competent authority, or Local Councilor of Municilpality is filed by the Complainant to establish that she is only legal heir of deceased Partha Biswas. We understand the point that the last blance amount is required to obtain the Succession Certificate from the competent Court of Law, but the Complainant has not filed any document to show that she is the only legal heir of deceased Partha Biswas. We also find that the Ld. Advocate for the complaint had issued two letters dated 30th August,2016 pertaining to the aforesaid account of late Partha Biswas, wherein the name of the deceased is mentioned as Probodh Kumar Biswas. We also find from the cause title of the petition that the name of the Complainant is Smt. Sarmistha Banerjee, but the deceased account holder’s name is late Partha Biswaws. The Complainant has not also cleared relationship in clear terms between herself and the deceased Partha Biswas.
We also find that Complainant is a mere third party, who is trying to seek information on the basis of Bank Account maintained with the OPs by her so called brother namely Partha Biswas, since deceased. The Complainant is to put to strict proof regarding her relationship with the deceased, Partha Biswas/and or the fact that Complainant is the only legal heir of the deceased and/or that except the Complainant, the deceased had no other legal heir.
Mere saying that the Complainant is the only legal heir is not doing or sufficient. Moreover, we find that the Complainant does not qualify as a consumer within the ambit under section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. Complainant is the third party seeking information without filing any documents that she is the legal heir of Partha Biswas. The Complainant should agitate her claim, if any, in relation to the estate and properties of the deceased account holder before the appropriarte Court. We cannot also issue any direction upon the OPs for issuance of Pass Book of those two bank accounts in her name in respect of the Account of late Partha Biswas. We are afraid the Complainant is not also cited as a nominee in the Bank Accounts in question. The Complainant does not also fall within the definition of “Consumer” as defined in section 2(1) (d) of the CP Act, 1986. We find no merit in the case.
In result, the case does not merit success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs.
No order as to cost.
