Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/387

Harinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Overseas Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Narinder Singh Adv.

26 Nov 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Forum Ludhiana
Room No. 7, Old Wing, New Judicial Complex, Ferozepur Road Ludhiana.
Final Order
 
Complaint Case No. CC/22/387
( Date of Filing : 06 Oct 2022 )
 
1. Harinder Singh
H.No.877, St.no.2, Sahibzada Jujhar Singh Nagar, Teh & distt.Sangrur
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Indian Overseas Bank
Br.Bullanpur Dakha Ludhiana through its Br.Manager
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sanjeev Batra PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Monika Bhagat MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 26 Nov 2024
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:  387 dated 06.10.2022.                                     Date of decision: 26.11.2024. 

 

Harinder Singh S/o. Sh. Sukhdev Singh, R/o. House No.877, Street No.2, Sahibzada Jujhar Singh Nagar, Tehsil and District Sangrur, nominee/legal representative of late Smt. Bachan Kaur W/o. Babu Singh, R/o. Village Hissowal, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana. M. No.7307570003, Email 4444BAAZ@gmail.com                                                                                                                                                                               ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

  1. Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Mullanpur Dakha, Ludhiana through its BranchManager-141101.
  2. Indian Overseas Bank, having its Regional Office at 550/1, Fountain Chowk, College Road, Civil Line, Ludhiana, Punjab through its Chief Regional Manager-141001.                                                                                                                                              …..Opposite parties 

Complaint U/s. 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2020 as amended up to date.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Narinder Singh, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Sh. P.K. Sharma, Advocate.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that Late Smt. Bachan Kaur W/o. Late Sh. Babu Singh, R/o. Village Hissowal, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana was paternal aunty (Bhua) of the complainant who was having a savings bank account No.047401000008297 with OP1 in which the complainant was a nominee. OP1 was having knowledge that Smt. Bachan Kaur has expired on 20.12.2017 leaving behind the complainant being her nominee/legal representative in respect of said account with OP branch at Mullanpur Dakha, Ludhiana. The complainant stated that he has legal right to collect funds lying deposited in the said account as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. As such, OP1 was legally bound to settle his claim in respect of deceased depositor Late Smt. Bachan Kaur and to release the payment in his favour within 15 days from the date of lodging the claim and sending written intimation of death of late Smt. Bachan Kaur by the complainant to the OPs on 03.06.2020 along with her death certificate as well as suitable identity proofs of the complainant. However, the OPs failed to settle the claim and release the payment in favour of the complainant within stipulated period but did not repudiate his claim. According to the complainant, after death of late Smt. Bachan Kaur, he had stepped into her shoes and as such, being lawful nominee, he is entitled to get release the amount lying in the account of late Smt. Bachan Kaur and for which, he is ready to fulfill any other formality is required by the OPs. The complainant further stated that he approached OP1 number of times with request to release the amount but the Branch Manager of OP1 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and even pressurized the complainant to open an account with them and assured to deposit the entire amount received by him from account of Late Smt. Bachan Kaur. The complainant claimed to have suffered mental tensioning, financial loss etc. due to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant sent separate legal notices dated 26.08.2022 to the OPs but to no effect. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to settle his claim and release the amount in question to him immediately and also to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed joint written statement and by taking preliminary objections assailed the complaint on the grounds of  maintainability; the complainant having no locus standi; the complainant has not come with clean hands; concealment of material facts etc. The OPs stated that the complainant served legal notice 26.08.2022 for making the payment to them. The OPs always asked the complainant to submit a proper order of competent court in his favour but he failed to supply any order in this regard. The OP issued letters to the complainant asking him to submit “Proof of Claimant’s title” that a decree by a competent court but he failed to supply the same to them. According to the  OPs, the complainant is not entitled to any claim amount from the account of Late Smt. Bachan Kaur without getting a decree/order from the competent court. The OPs are unable to pay the amount lying in account of said deceased person to anybody without the order of the competent court in his favour.

                   On merits, the OPs reiterated the crux of averments made in preliminary objections. However, the OPs admitted that Smt. Bachan Kaur was having a saving account with them in which the complainant was appointed as her nominee but no proper relation was mentioned. The OPs have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint as well as affidavit Ex. CB of Sh. Sukhdev Singh S/o. Kirpa Singh. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C20 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex RA of Sh. Debjyoti, Branch Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Mullanpur Dakha, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R24 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents as well as written statement, affidavit and documents produced on record by both parties.

6.                Admittedly, one Bachan Kaur wife of Late Sh. Babu Singh was holding a savings bank account No.047401000008297 with OP1 bank. Unfortunately, Smt. Bachan Kaur died on 20.12.2017. The complainant claimed himself to be the nephew and nominee of the deceased qua the said bank account and had been pursuing the death claim settlement with the bank by approaching the OPs personally and also by serving legal notices. The OPs in their reply to the legal notice Ex. C20, did not accept the complainant to be the nominee of Bachan Kaur deceased. But, while submitting the reply on merits in para No.2 of the written version, the OPs have categorically admitted that Smt. Bachan Kaur was having a savings bank account with respondent/OP and the complainant was appointed as her nominee with no proper relation mentioned. However, this fact can be corroborated by the document Ex. R22 which shows the complainant to be nominee of deceased Bachan Kaur. It also bears the thumb impression stated to have been affixed by deceased depositor in the presence of one witness namely Parmod Kumar. However, the details of these material facts were not divulged by the OPs in reply to the legal notices Ex. R15 and Ex. R19. As such, the complainant has been able to prove himself to be the nominee of deceased Bachan Kaur qua the bank account in question.

7.                As far as the legal proposition of “Nominee” is concerned, in common parlance, the nominee is a person who manages the assets for legal heirs of a deceased person and ensures that the legal persons receive the assets of the deceased person. He owes such responsibility until the legal heirs are identified and the property is lawfully transferred to them as per their respective entitlement.

                   Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 stipulates in this regard and said Section is delineated below:-

                   45ZA. Nomination for payment of depositors’ money:-

  1. Whereas 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 deposition, 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. Where the nominee is a minor, it shall be lawful for the depositor making the nomination to appoint in the prescribed manner any person to receive the amount of deposit in the event of his death during the minority of the nominee.
  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.”

 

Further reference can be made to Ram Chander Talwar and another Vs Devender Kumar Talwar and others (2010) 10 SCC 671 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“Section 45-ZA (2) merely puts the nominee in the shoes of the deposit after his death and clothes him with the exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. It gives him all the rights of the depositor so far as the depositor’s account is concerned. But it by no stretch of imagination makes the nominee the owner of the money lying in the account. It needs to be remembered that the Banking Regulation Act is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking. It is in no way concerned with the question of succession. All the monies receivable by the nominee by virtue of Section 45-ZA(2) would, therefore, form part of the estate of the deceased depositor and devolve according to the rule of succession to which the depositor may be governed.”

As such, after applying ratio of above law, the complainant, as a nominee, is entitled to receive the amount deposited in savings bank account No.047401000008297 along with incidental and consequential benefits. However, the complainant will hold the amount as a trustee of all legal heirs, if any and will be bound to account for between/amongst them ratably.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with directions to the OPs to release the amount lying deposited in the in savings bank account No.047401000008297 along with incidental and consequential benefits to the complainant being the nominee of deceased Smt. Bachan Kaur within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall also pay a composite costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complainant will hold the amount as a trustee of all legal heirs, if any and will be bound to account for  between/amongst them ratably. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.      

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.11.2024.

Gobind Ram.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sanjeev Batra]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Monika Bhagat]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.