Date of Filing : 25.04.2017
Date of Judgment : 26.04.2023
Mrs. Ashoka Guha Roy (Bera), Hon’ble Member
The instant Complaint case has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the Complainant, Mrs Saloni Gupta alleging interalia deficiency in service against the Opposite Party No.1,2 & 3 Punjab National Bank (earlier United Bank of India Ltd.), Hazra Branch being represented by its Manager and its Chief Manager and Deputy Manager.
The brief fact of the case is that one Rani Gupta wife of Shiv Kumar Gupta of 109/19, Hazra Road, P.S. Bhawanipore, Kolkata-700026 was maintaining a P.P.F. A/C being No. 40 since 21.4.2012 under United Bank Of India, Hazra Road Branch, Kolkata-700026. That the said A/C holder Rani Gupta during her lifetime nominated the Complainant, Mrs. Saloni Gupta her daughter in-law as the nominee of the said P.P.F. account. That the said account holder Rani Gupta died on 29.9.2016 and after her death the complainant by a letter dtd. 16.01.17 requested the bank to release the entire amount of Rs. 13,96,776/- lying in the said PPF account in her favour. Since the nomination was established by the bank on 30.12.2016 and the nominee Smt. Saloni Gupta as per the requirement submitted all the necessary documents to the bank on 16.01.2017 and upon receiving the said documents from the complainant, the bank authority informed that payment shall be made within 7 working days. On 27.01.2017 again the nominee Smt. Saloni Gupta, went to the bank and asked her claim, the Opposite party No.2 Chief Manager and the Opposite party No.3, Deputy Manager further undertake to pay the said P.P.F amount within 31stJanuary 2017.
On 2nd February 2017 again the nominee Smt. Saloni Gupta went to the bank and requested them to disburse the entire amount in favour of the nominee Smt. Saloni Gupta, the complainant herein. On that day the Chief Manager namely Suhash Sovan Sengupta and the Deputy Manager namely Aloke Jha told the complaint that one Shiv Kumar Gupta lodged complaint for disbursement the P.P.F amount. The said two officers also undertake to disburse the said P.P.F amount in favour of the nominee Saloni Gupta, the complainant herein as per the provisions of the banking regulation Act.
The said two officers also requested the complainant Saloni Gupta to come on 20th February 2017 and collect the amount lying in the P.P.F account.
On 20thFebruary 2017 the nominee Smt. Saloni Gupta, the complainant went to the bank to collect the amount but the said two officers denied to pay the entire amount lying in the P.P.F account as Shiv Kumar Gupta, the husband of deceased Rani Gupta raised objection.
The opposite party no. 1 bank is bound and liable to pay the entire amount of ₹13,96,776/- lying in the P.P.F account in favour of the complainant Saloni Gupta, being the nominee as per the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act.
The complainant has requested opposite party no. 1 bank through e-mail dated 20.2.2017 and 27.02.2017 and finally on 10.4.2017 the complainant went to the bank and requested for payment of the entire amount of ₹13,96,776/- lying in the P.P.F account in favour of the complainant Saloni Gupta, but the opposite party failed and neglected to pay the same amount to the complainant. As such the Complainant under these compelling circumstances has filed the instant case praying for relief mentioned in the Complaint.
The Opposite Party Bank contested the case by filing written version mainly contending that the case is not maintainable as the complainant has not approached the Ld. Commission with clean hands, since one Shiv Kumar Gupta being the husband of the deceased Rani Gupta has filed a suit for declaration being Title Suit No.582 of 2017 before the 3rd Civil Judge (Jr. Division) at Alipore; and had obtained a civil injunction from the aforesaid Ld. Court on 24.04.2017 thereby the Ld. Court has directed the Opposite party Bank to restrain from disbursing the money lying in the PPF Account No.40 in the name of the deceased Rani Gupta and the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint Case on 25.04.2017 with a prayer for direction upon the Opposite Party Bank to pay Rs. 13,96,776/- with interest which is lying in the PPF Account No. 40. The husband of the deceased Rani Gupta wrote letters to the Opposite Party Bank that the passbook of PPF A/C was lying with him and the statement which was made by the complainant to the Opposite Party Bank as well as to the police authority was absolutely false and informed that his wife Rani Gupta executed a will in favour of him in relation to the PPF Account which was registered at the Office of the Additional registrar of assurance at Kolkata and recorded in Book No. IV, Volume No. 1903 to 1915 pages 1307 to 1323 being no. 190300608 for the year 2015. Opposite party bank files the legal opinion of AGM stating that the deceased customer has made her Will in respect of all her properties as indicated above bequeathing the same in favour of her Husband. Since the registered Will is executed subsequent to the nominee made by the deceased customer, the said ‘Will’ will prevail over the nomination made in favour of Smt. Saloni Gupta. However, Sri Shiv Kumar Gupta may be informed to obtain the letter of Probate as executor of the Will from a competent Court of Law till such time the amount lying in the PPF Account of the deceased customer cannot be paid to the Complainant.
That during pendency of the instant complaint case Shiv Kumar Gupta filed an application to be a party in this instant case and the Ld. Commission was pleased to allow the application being satisfied with the statement mentioned in the said application wherein it was clearly mentioned that a registered WILL has been made on 10.06.2015 and a Title Suit being no. 528 of 2017 was filed before the Ld. 3rd Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Alipore and also passed an ad-interim order for restraining the Opposite Party Bank from disbursing the amount of the PPF Account on 24.04.2017. Shiv Kumar Gupta was incorporated as Opposite Party No. 4 in the instant complaint case.
That according to the statement made in the questionnaires of the Complainant it has been mentioned that Shiv Kumar Gupta died on 16.02.2020 but the Complainant did not amend the cause title of the instant complaint case by making the legal heirs of Shiv Kumar Gupta party to the instant case and hence the case is liable to be rejected.
The Complainant in support of her claim files the following documents:
1. Affidavit-in-chief
2. Brief Notes of Argument
3.Death Certificates of Shiv Kumar Gupta & Rani Gupta
4. Copy of the Order dtd. 8.8.2019 for withdrawal of the Injunction Suit for non-prosecution filed by Shiv Kumar Gupta.
5. Questionnaire by the Complainant
6. Reply by the Complainant against the Questionnaire filed by the Opposite Party Bank
The Opposite Parties file the following documents in support of their written version:
1. Copy of the Order for restraining the Bank from disbursing the amount lying in the PPF Account of the deceased
2. Copy of the Plaint of Injunction Suit along with annexure filed before the Ld.3rd Court Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Alipore
3. Copy of the Registered Will of Shiv Kumar Gupta & Rani Gupta
4. Affidavit-in-chief of Opp No. 2&3
5. Questionnaire filed by Opp No.2&3
6. Reply filed by Opp no.2&3 against the questionnaire filed by Complainant
7. Legal opinion of Asst. General Manager UBI for non disbursement of PPF account
Upon careful scrutiny of the above documents and the material on records placed before us and considering the submission made by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties, we are of the view that only point requires determination is whether there is any deficiency on the part of Banking Authority in providing service to the complainant and whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for. These two points are taken together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
Decision with reasons
It is the contention of the complainant that the Opposite Party Bank has been negligent in rendering service to the complainant for not releasing the legitimate claim of the complainant who was appointed as the nominee of the deceased during her lifetime in respect of her PPF Account as per the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act.
Whereas it is the submission of the Opposite Party Bank that such denial of releasing the PPF Account in favour of the Bank is due to one objection raised by one Shiv Kumar Gupta who is the husband of the deceased Rani Gupta being one of the claimant, who has also filed a copy of the registered Will executed by Shiv Kumar Gupta & his deceased wife Rani Gupta declaring that in the event of Shiv Kumar Gupta predeceasing his wife Rani Gupta shall be entitled to all the gold silver ornaments, cash bank deposits, insurance policies, securities, mutual funds, shares debts, fixed deposits, PPF Accounts, monthly income the Post Office owned by Shiv Kumar Gupta similarly in the event of Rani Gupta pre-deceasing her husband Sri Shiv Kumar Gupta shall be entitled to all the aforesaid assets and income owned by Rani Gupta. The said Shiv Kumar also obtained one Restraining Order dtd. 24.4.2017 from the Ld. 3rd Court Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Alipore with a direction upon the Bank to restrain from disbursing the money lying in the PPF Account No. 40 of the deceased Rani Gupta. Moreover, Section 45 ZA(2) The Banking Regulation Act has been placed before us which states as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any disposition, whether testamentary & 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, 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.
The report sent by AGM Legal of the Bank holds since the deceased customer has made her will in respect of all her properties as indicated above bequeathing the same in favour of her husband. Since the registered will is executed subsequent to the nomination made by the deceased customer, the said WILL will prevail over the nomination made in favour of Smt. Saloni Gupta. Accordingly bank is unable to disburse the amount lying in the PPF Account.
Be that as it may, the present case has been filed by the complainant on the cause of action i.e. denial of the bank to release the fund, To pass any order in favour of the Complainant this Commission is to hold the deficiency in service on the part of the bank at the relevant point of time since the grounds shown by the bank are quite justified and the fact that there remains no latches on the part of the Bank in rendering service to its customer. So this Commission cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, hence the present Complaint Case deserves to be dismissed.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That CC/244/2017 is dismissed on contest without cost.
However, it has come to the light that during pendency of the case Shiv Kumar Gupta who raised objection and subsequently became a necessary party, died on 16.2.2020 and had already withdrawn the case filed in the 3rd Court of Civil Judge Jr. Division for non- prosecution vide order 8.8.2019. So on consideration of the said fact the restraining order of the Civil Court is no more in existence/force. Accordingly from that point of view we hold that apparently at present there remains no impediment for the Bank to disburse the amount lying in the PPF Account of the deceased in favour of the Complainant being the nominee of the deceased. Accordingly the Complainant may approach the Bank authority afresh for disbursement of the amount lying in the PPF Account of the Deceased Rani Gupta after obtaining necessary formalities as required under banking regulation.
