As per Hon’ble President Mr. Atul Alshi.
1. The complainant has filed complaint case U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP bank for non-disbursement of the balance amount of Rs.10,06,489/- of deceased after submission of succession certificate and thereby claiming interest on amount, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation.
2. The complaint in short as under –
The complainant is daughter of deceased Lt. Pandurang Radkuji Bhivankar, having saving account bearing no.10603/2856 with OP bank. The complainant had applied for the succession certificate and the Civil Court has granted succession certificate in favour of complainant. But Op failed to disburse the deposit amount complainant’s father amounting to Rs.10,06,489/- for the reason of pendency of appeal before District Court Nagpur and also an application has been filed for setting aside order passed in Misc. Civil Application no. 181/2013 decided on 26.07.2013 for grant of succession certificate. The OP has filed an appeal after the period of limitation and therefore, the OP has no case on merit. Hence request of disburse the balance amount in saving bank account as per succession certificate in favour of complainant from saving bank account does amounts deficiency of service. Therefore, the complaint is filed.
3. The OP bank filed reply and denied allegations and admitted that the complainant’s father was having saving account with OP bank and balance amount in account is 10,06,489/-. The other legal heir of deceased filed appeal against grant of succession certificate in the case bearing no. 181/2013 on dtd.26.07.2016 and therefore, due to pendency of appeal the balance amount in saving account cannot given to complainant. Therefore, no negligence on the part OP, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. The counsel for complainant argued that non disbursement of balance amount in saving account of deceased in favour of complainant as per lower court order does amounts deficiency of service.
5. The counsel for OP argued that due to pendency of appeal against order grant of succession certificate in favour of complainant does not amounts deficiency of service.
6. After hearing of case the following points arose for consideration.
POINTS
- Whether the complainant is consumer? Yes.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP? No.
- What order? As per final order.
REASONING
7. Point No. 1 – The complainant being legal heir of deceased father who was having saving account in OP bank, hence the complainant is consumer.
8. Point No. 2 to 3 – The complainant being legal heir of deceased father Lt. Pandurang Radkuji Bhivankar, had applied for succession certificate by filing Civil Application bearing no. 181/13 and on 26.07.2013 Civil Court has granted succession certificate in favour of complainant. The other legal heirs Maltibai Shriram Bhiwankar, Shriwan Rodkuji Bhiwankar, Sagar Banduji Bhoyar were non applicants in succession certificate case. The matter has been proceeded without reply and evidence of the other legal heirs. The other legal heirs has preferred R.A.C. civil appeal against grant of succession certificate before District Court Nagpur. The pendency of appeal is continuation of proceeding of lower court and therefore, till the outcome of final order and judgment the refusal of OP bank to disburse balance amount of deceased from saving account with OP bank does not amounts deficiency of service. The claim for disbursement of amount as per succession certificate will be decided after finality of judgement and order. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP bank for refusal to disburse amount from saving account of deceased. Hence, the complaint is dismissed as per following order.
ORDER
- The complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
- Copy of the order shall be given to both the parties, free of cost.
