Brief facts of the complaint are that Tarlochan Singh son of Kartar Singh father of complainant Ranjit Singh had Saving Account bearing No.246 and Rs.62078/- was saved upto 23/10/2006 by Tarlochan Singh who died on 26/1/2007 and during his life time first of all Tarlochan Singh nominated his wife Charan Kaur as his legal nominee to operate the abovesaid Account. But on 26/3/2001 Tarlochan Singh nominated his son Ranjit Singh as his legal nominee and he cancelled nomination of his wife Charan Kaur. The Manager of Indian Overseas Bank opposite party informed complainant about his nomination through letter dated 26/3/2001 tendered as Ex.C3 in evidence by the complainant. It is further alleged that after death of complainant's father he has been requesting the opposite party Bank to allow him to withdraw the amount lying in the abovesaid Saving Account but opposite party Bank has been lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. This act of opposite party Bank amounts to deficiency in sevice against which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite party Bank who appeared through counsel and filed written statement. It is pleaded that while nominating Ranjit Singh his father Tarlochan Singh committed an error and he had not cancelled nomination of his wife Charan Kaur as nominee, so the opposite party Bank is not liable to pay the claim amount as per rules and regulations of Bank. So there is no deficienyc in service on the part of opposit party.<br /> 3. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.C1 to C7.<br /> 4. On the other hand opposite party produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.R1 to R3.<br /> 5. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for both the parties on 15/5/2009. It is admitted case of both the parties that Tarlochan Singh son of Kartar Singh father of complainant Ranjit Singh had Saving Account bearing No.246 and Rs.62078/- was saved upto 23/10/2006 by Tarlochan Singh who died on 26/1/2007 and during his life time first of all Tarlochan Singh nominated his wife Charan Kaur as his legal nominee to operate the abovesaid Account. But on 26/3/2001 Tarlochan Singh nominated his son Ranjit Singh as his legal nominee and he cancelled nomination of his wife Charan Kaur. The Manager of Indian Overseas Bank opposite party informed complainant about his nomination through letter dated 26/3/2001 tendered as Ex.C3 in evidence by the complainant. During arguments counsel for opposite party Bank argued that while nominating Ranjit Singh his father Tarlochan Singh committed an error and he had not cancelled nomination of his wife Charan Kaur as nominee. Counsel for complainant argued that Charan Kaur mother of complainant had died on 27/10/1996 and there is no question of any demand of the amount in the Saving Account by Charan Kaur and at present Ranjit Singh who is only son of Tarlochan singh and Charan Kaur is alive and he has been duly nominated as his nominee by his father vide Ex.C3. At this stage of arguments counsel for Bank argued that Bank has nomination of two persons namely Charan Kaur and Ranjit Singh and this forum should decide who will operate this Saving Account after death of Tarlochan singh. At this stage counsel for complainant argued that he is ready to file affidavit regarding his nomination by his father and also regarding death of his mother Charan Kaur . Today on 19/5/2009 counsel for complainant has filed affidavit of Ranjit Singh complainant and also attested copy of death certificate of charan Kaur wife of Tarlochan Singh. From these two documents it is clear that Charan Kaur wife of Tarlochan singh and mother of present complainant Ranjit Singh died on 27/10/1996 and after her death Tarlochan Singh rightly nominated his only son as his legal nominee on 26/3/2001 and after that Manager of opposite party Bank informed complainant regarding his nomination by his father. So now there is only one nominee of saving Account of Tarlochan Singh and he is the legal heir of the amount lying in Saving Account No.246 of his father. So we direct the opposite party Bank to release the requisite amount and its interest till date of realisation to complainant Ranjit Singh who is son of Tarlochan Singh who was the original owner of Saving Account No.246 with the opposite party Bank. and also to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.6000/- for mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses payable within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of order be supplied to the parties and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit singh<br /> 19.5.2009 Member Member President