SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of non-disbursement of deposited amount to the legal heirs of the deceased depositor are the allegations arrayed against the Opp. Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that, Haladhar Sahoo deceased husband of the Complainant No.1 opened an account on Op No.2 branch with it’s A/C No. 18493700095 and as on 30.09.2017 the total sum was Rs. 53,650/-. It is the case of the complainant’s that the deceased Haladhar Sahoo while opened the A/C nominated his brother Ramakanta Sahoo as nominee of the said Account in event of his death. On death of the A/C holder Haladhar Sahoo, his legal heirs applied before the Op-Cooperative Bank to receive the matured amount after complying all the official formalities. But Op No.1 & 2 declined to disburse the amount Complainant’s even after receipt of the no-objection certificate of deceased Account-holders mother namely Basanti Sahoo. It is also alleged that the nominee Ramakanta Sahoo can’t be treated as a legal heir under Hindu Succession Act rather the mother Basanti Sahoo is the bonafide successor to receive the disburse amount of her share alongwith the other complainants. The non- release of amount in favour of the complainants and mother Basanti Sahoo by the Op No.1 & 2, Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. is treated as deficiency in service. Hence, it is prayed that a direction may be given to Op No.1 & 2 to release the entire amount in respect of A/C No. 1843700095 in favour of the legal heirs alongwith cost of litigation.
3. Upon service of notice OP No. 2, Branch Manager, Sahara India Parivar, Kendrapara appeared though their Ld. Counsel Mr. M.P.Singh and field written version on behalf of Op No.1 & 2. In the written version Op No.1 & 2 denies the allegations and submitting the facts admits the opening of Account by the Haladhar Sahoo, S/o- Late Dibakar Sahoo at Op No.1 Branch bearing A/C No. 18493700095 and an amount of Rs. 53,650/- is the deposited amount till dt. 30.09.2017. It is averred that deceased Account holder Haladhar Sahoo prior to his mirage appointed his Real brother Mr. Ramakanta Sahoo as nominee of the said Account Op No.1 & 2 in their written version also averred that, U/S 45ZA(2) of the Banking Regulation Act the nominee is entitled to receive the amount, but can’t be absolute owner of the money lying on the Account and cited a decision of Honbl’e Apex Court in case of Mr. Ram Chander Talwar. So, Op No.1 & 2 has not committed by deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainants.
Op No.3 Basanti Sahoo, Mother and Op No.4 brother Ramakanta Sahoo of the deceased A/C holder though appeared into the dispute but did not file any written version, hence set ex-parte by this Forum U/S 13(2)(b)(ii) of C.P.Act 1986.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsels Mr. D.K.Kar appearing for the Complainant and case of the Op No.1 & 2 on merit and ex-parte hearing against Op No.3 & 4. Complainants to substantiate their case filed self-attested Xerox copy of death certificate of the Haladhar Sahoo, application for disburse of maturity amount, legal heir certificate, affidavit of Sunita Sahoo, W/o- deceased A/C holder, No-Objection Certificate of Basanti Sahoo, mother of the deceased A/C holder and photocopy of certificate by complainant No.1 namely Sunita Sahoo. The admitted facts of the case are that A/C holder Haladhar Sahoo opened an Account when he was bachelor before Op No.2, Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society, Kendrapara bearing A/C No. 18493700095 and an amount of Rs. 53,650/- remains as balance till 30.09.2017. It is also an admitted fact that, the Account holder while opening said Account nominated his full brother Ramakanta Sahoo as a ‘nominee’ in the said Account. Subsequently, the Account holder died leaving his legal heirs , widow wife Sunita Sahoo, 2 minor children (Complainant No.2 & 3) and his widow mother Basanti Sahoo (Op No.3). It is also admitted that the deposited amount on the Account in question was not disbursed to the legal heirs by the Op No.2 as there was a valid nomination in the name of Op No.4 the brother of the complainant. It is further admitted that the individuals persons related to the present dispute are governed by Hindu Succession Act-1956.
In the present case the only dispute of non-release of deposited amount in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased Policy holder is defended by the OpNo.2-financial Institution is that as the Account holder nominated his brother Ramakanta Sahoo(OPNo.4) as the nominee of the Account and U/S 45ZA(2) of Banking Regulation Act, the deposited amount can’t be released directly in favour of the legal heirs or successors as the said section entitle the nominee only to receive the deposited amount. The Complainants to substantiate their case relied on the decision of Honbl’e Apex Court in case of Smt. Sarabati Devis Anr. Vrs Smt. Usha Devi reported in 1984 AIR 346 and decision of our own High Court in case of Smt. Bhanumati Behera Vs L.I.C. of India, Sambalpur division reported in 2002(1) O.L.R.-200. We carefully gone through the decisions filed by Complainants. The decisions cited by Complainants related to the payments of Life Insurance Policy U/S 39 of the Insurance Act and the Provisions applicable for the said section under Hindu Succession Act -1956. As the present dispute relates to disbursement of deposited amount to the nominee or his legal heirs/successors, which is governed by Banking Regulation Act-1949 Sec. 45ZA(2) of the Banking Regulation Act-1949 is applicable to the instant dispute instead of Sec. 39 of Life Insurance Act-1938. We quote Section 45ZA(2) of Banking Regulation Act-1949 “Notwithstanding anything contained in any 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 to 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 xx xxx xxx xxx ” . But the spirit of Section 39 of the Insurance Act and Sec. 45ZA( 2) of Banking Regulation Act-1994 are almost similar in nature and a number of decision of the Apex Court and different High Courts in case of payment of Life Insurance Policies, it is clear that in the death of the depositors, a third party cannot be a owner of the property/estate by violating the provisions of Hindu Succession Act-1956 and in the case inhand U/S 45ZA(2) of the Banking Regulation Act-1949, the nominee has the only right to receive the deposited amount, and can’t be owner of the disbursed amount. It is also clear from the observation of the Honbl’e Apex Court that same principle is applicable to Insurance Act-1939, Banking Regulation Act-1949 and Govt. Savings Act-1959, where Honbl’e Apex Court opined that by virtue of Sec. 45ZA(2) the monies receivable by the nominee form a part of the estate of the deceased depositor and devolves according to the rule of succession. We also rely on decisions of Honbl’e Apex court of in case of RamaChander Talwar & Anr. Vrs Dvendra Kumar Talwar in Civil Appeal No. 1684 of 2004 and in case of Sri Vishin N. Khanchandini & Anr. Vrs Vidya Lanchmandas Khanchandini & Anr. In SLP (Civil) No. 12766 of 1999.
Considering the position of law in the present dispute it is quite clear that, the nominee the full brother of the deceased Account holder Ramakanta Sahoo, Op-4 has right to receive the deposited amount kept with Op- Co-operative financial Institution (OP-2), but Op No.4 can’t enjoy or owned the disbursed amount of deceased Account holder and the received amount by Op No.4 has to be passed to the successors/legal heirs of the deceased Account holder Haladhar Sahoo. Complainant’s filed a legal heir certificate issued by the Competent Revenue authorities, where the complainants and the Op No.3 mother of the deceased Account holder are the bonafide legal heirs. Complainants also filed a copy of No Objection affidavit furnished by Op No.3 in favour of the complainants that her share of the deposited amount be transferred into the name of the complainants No.1 Sunita Sahoo, the legal heir certificate presented reveals that complainant No. 2& 3 are minors and complainant No.1 is their mother- guardian. The total payable amount till-date of the deceased Account holder is to be equally divided as 1/3rd share of the each of the Complainants. As the Complainant No. 2& 3 are minor, their share of amount be transferred into a fixed deposit scheme with a Nationalized Bank with complainant No.1 as mother-guardian. The fixed deposit amount in name of the minors will be realized, when complainant-minors attain the age of 18(eighteen) years as per their birth certificate. Further, the legal heir certificate and NOC of OP No.3 mother produced before this Forum is no way challenged by the stake holders. The written version OP No.2 is silent regarding claim of the deposited amount if any by the OpNo.4-nominee. It is the only question before the Op No.2 to disbursed the deposited amount in whose favour, when the Complainants including OP No.3 claims their legal rights to receive the deposited amount of deceased Account holder lying with Op No.2. In this connection this question of disbursement is discussed in aforesaid observations of this forum and it is equally clear that the nominee has neither made any claim, before the Op No.2 nor contested the present proceeding inspite of his appearance. So, it is evident that the nominee has no objection on release of deposited amount in favour of the legal heirs are presumed that the amount is received by OP No.4-nominee. In this situation and complexity of the legal position, we don’t think OPNo.1 & 2 has committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainants.
Having observations reflected above, it is directed that, the Op No.2-Branch-in-charge Sahara India Parivar, Kendrapara shall release the amount deposited in connection to A/C No. 18493700095 stands in the name of Late Haldhar Sahoo as per our observation with other financial benefits to the Complainants. The order is to be carried out by Op No.2 within one month of receipt of this order, failing which action to be initiated against OpNo.2 as per the provisions of C.P.Act-1986.
Complaint is allowed in part on contest against the Op No.1 & 2 and ex-parte against OpNo.3 & 4. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 31st day of August-2019.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
