Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 8.2.2002 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ropar whereby his complaint bearing No.25 of 2001 seeking payment of FDRs was dismissed 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that one Labh Singh deposited a sum of Rs.70556/- in different FDRs with OPs No.1 & 2 and he made the complainant as his nominee to receive the payment of FDRs in case of his death. The complainant was a grandson of said Labh Singh in distinct relationship as his real grandfather namely Puran Singh and Labh Singh were real brothers and Labh Singh was issueless and he expired on 9.7.2000. After the death of Labh Singh, complainant being his nominee requested OPs 1 & 2 vide his application dated 19.11.2000 to make payment of FDRs but instead of making the payment they renewed the FDRs on 20.11.2000 and certified in writing that complainant was nominee of the deceased Labh Singh. However, when payment of FDRs was not made, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum . 4. On the other hand, the case of OPs No.1 & 2 before the District Forum was that the claim of the complainant had been rightly withheld as he had not produced any proof of his being grandson, successor, legal heir of deceased Labh Singh and his legal heirs only were entitled to the amount deposited by the deceased. Further the name of Bahadur Singh mentioned in the nomination column was highly doubtful and keeping in view the different signatures of Labh Singh deceased at different places the company was doubtful qua the entitlement of the complainant. The maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum was also challenged and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on their part and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. OP NO.3,widow of the deceased Labh Singh also filed reply stating therein that the complainant was not the legal heir of the deceased, so he had no right to file the complaint. Moreover, when deceased Labh Singh was issueless , complainant as alleged in the complaint could not be grandson of the deceased. She being the widow of deceased was his sole legal heir and was entitled to inheritance in each & every respect. She prayed that the payment of FDRs may be paid to her with all benefits. 6. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the parts of OPs No.1 & 2 against whom relief was sought by the complainant and dismissed the complaint. Still dissatisfied, complainant had filed appeal before the Punjab State Consumer commission which has been transferred to this Commission under directions of the Hon’ble National Commission. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The sole point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant/complainant is that Bahadur Singh complainant was nominee of deceased Labh Singh, so he was entitled to get the amount of FDRs and while renewing the FDRs they themselves had certified vide Annexure A-1 that the complainant was nominee of Labh Singh. Moreover, this certificate was given by OPs No.1 & 2 on the same document on which the complainant was described as grandson of Labh Singh, meaning thereby OPs were fully satisfied about the relationship of appellant with Labh Singh but they did not make payment of the FDRs. However, this point of arguments has been repelled by the learned counsel for OPs NO.1 & 2 who argued that complainant has not produced any proof of his being successor and legal heir of deceased Labh Singh, whose widow Mohinder Kaur arrayed as OP NO.3 also claimed the said amount of FDRs. 8. In the instant case, the main dispute is whether Bahadur Singh being grandson of deceased Labh Singh was having valid nomination in the FDRs when the deceased had died issueless and his widow was also claimant of the amount under the FDRs. The learned District Forum observed in para-6 of the impugned order that in the application for FDR EX.AB name of the nominee apparently suffers from manipulation as initially his relationship was shown as son, but word “grand” over it had been added later on even to naked eye. The learned District Forum rightly observed that OP No.3 being widow of the deceased happened to be first class heir of the deceased while Bahadur Singh-complainant stands nowhere so far as succession per Hindu Succession Act,1956 is concerned. Even if the deceased had nominated the complainant then also the right of the widow cannot be usurped particularly when nomination cannot be equated with a Will by any means. 9. In this view of the matter, we find that the impugned order dated 28.2.2002 passed by the District Forum is quite reasonable and no interference is called for therein. Consequently the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. 10. However, before parting with this order we may make mention here that the complainant would be at liberty to knock at the door of appropriate court for further seeking relief in the matter, in accordance with law. However, the period taken in pursuing this matter before Fora may not be considered for the purpose of limitation. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
