Sri Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the Revisionists/Petitioners viz. 1) Manika Syam and 2) Sonali Gupta (who were the Proforma OP Nos. 3 & 4 respectively in the original complaint case) under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Respondents challenging the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 vide order no. 20 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Baruipur, Kolkata in connection with Consumer Complaint case no. CC/59/2021 whereby Ld. District Commission was pleased to pass the following order:
“Complainant files hazira along with a copy of order of the Hon`ble State Commission showing that the Revision Petition being No. : RP/104/2022 has been disposed off by the Hon`ble State Commission by Order No. 2 Dated 13.01.2023.
The case record is put up today for order.
These are the two applications filed by Smt. Manika Shyam W/o. Late Pranab Kumar Shyam and Smt. Sonali Gupta W/o. Sagarnil Gupta and D/o. Late Pranab Kumar Shyam dated 03.06.2022 and 18.08.2022 with a prayer to give direction to release the Fixed Deposit Account lying in the bank. Another with a prayer to dismiss the petition of complaint.
It was contended that Pranab Kuma Shyam during his life time on 31.05.2011, 26.04.2014 and 21.03.2012 made three fixed deposits in the joint name of Manika Shyam (wife) and Pranab Kumar Shyam (deceased/husband) and also made one Fixed Deposit on 31.05.2011 in the joint name of Sonali Gupta(daughter)) and Pranab Kumar Shyam (deceased/father). Now as the deceased Pranab Kumar Shyam dies intestate the bank authorities are not releasing the matured amount of the fixed deposit due to pendency of the litigation.
In another application on the same contention the petitioner prayed for dismissal of the said case.
Now it appears from the record as well as the copies of doucments available on record that Pranab Kumar Shyam died intestate on 28.04.2020. During his life time he made some fixed deposits as stated in the petitions under consideration in the joint name of Pranab Kumar Shyam with Manika Shyam (wife) and with Sonali Gupta (daughter). Now after the death of Pranab Kumar Shyam all his legal heirs e.g. Rup Kumar Shyam (Complainant/son) Manika Shyam (wife) and Sonali Gupta (daughter) are entitiled to get share of the said Fixed Deposits. Therefore, we are not inclined to alow the prayer of the petitioners.
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
That both the petitions dated 03.06.2022 and MA application dated 18.08.2022 both filed by Manika Shyam and Sonali Gupta are hereby considered and rejected. But we pass no order as to cost.
Fix 31.03.2023 for reply by complainant to the questionnaire filed by the OP.”
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above order of the Ld. Commission below the added Opposite Party nos. 3 and 4 as Revisionists/Petitioners have filed the present Revision Petition praying for allowing the same after setting aside the impugned order. In the body of the Revision Petition the Revisionists/Petitioners have contended that the Ld. District Commission passed the impugned order not in accordance with law; that the Ld. Commission below erred by rejecting the prayer of the Revisionists/Petitioners/added OPs praying for direction upon the OP/Bank to release the amount of fixed deposits as the Revisionists/Petitioners were the joint holders of the said fixed deposits; that the Ld. Commission below failed to appreciate that the mode of operation of those fixed deposits were either or survivor; that the Ld. Commission below passed the impugned order without following the mode of operation (either or survivor) of the said fixed deposits; that the Ld. Commission below failed to consider that after the demise of Pranab Kumar Shyam all his legal heirs are not entitled to get the share of the fixed deposits in accordance with the banking laws as the mode of operation was E or S; that the impugned order of the Ld. Commission below is bad in law and liable to be set aside. On all such grounds the Revisionists/Petitioners have prayed for allowing the present Revision Petition after setting aside the impugned order dated 2nd March, 2023 (vide order no. 20) passed in connection with Complaint Case no. CC/59/2021.
Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1/Rupkumar Shyam has submitted that he has instituted the Consumer Complaint Case being no. CC/59/2021 against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 praying for certain relief/reliefs as sought for in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint. It has been also submitted that the present Respondent has not filed any case against the present Revisionists/Petitioners who filed an application on 21.01.2022 praying for impleading them as necessary parties in the said complaint case. Accordingly, upon contested hearing Ld. Commission below was pleased to implead the present Revisionists/Petitioners as added OP Nos. 3 and 4. It has been further submitted that subsequently the present Revisionists/Petitioners filed an application on 03.06.2022 and another one on 18.08.2022 before the Ld. District Commission praying for direction to release the fixed deposits in question lying in the bank account of Pranab Kumar Shyam since deceased with the mode of operate E or S. The applications dated 03.06.2022 and the MA application dated 18.08.2022 filed by Monika Shyam and Sonali Gupta (Revisionists/Petitioners) were rejected upon hearing. According to the Ld. Counsel all the legal heirs and successors of deceased Pranab Kumar Shyam are entitled to get 1/3rd share each in the said fixed deposits lying with the Bank and as such there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order dated 02.03.2023. Respondent No. 1 has prayed for outright rejection of the Revision Petition with costs.
Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/Bank of India has vehemently urged that they are always duty bound to maintain the direction of the Hon’ble Commission in the matter of releasing the fixed deposits lying in the name of Pranab Kumar Shyam with another having the mode of operation E or S. According to the Bank the impugned order does not cause any harm upon the present Respondent no. 1. Ld. Counsel has fairly submitted that Ld. Commission may pass any order as it may deem fit and proper for the sake of justice.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Circular (Notification dated June 09, 2005) enables the claimant(s)/legal heir(s) to recover the FD amounts even if there is no nomination. RBI, through its awareness campaign on the significance of nomination in case of FDs, mentions that “in case of a joint deposit account the nominees’ right arises only after the death of all account holders”. Payment by bank to the serving joint-holder(s) or nominee of a deceased deposit joint-holder represents a valid discharge of the Bank’s liability. Banks have now accepted the view that in an account, whether the operation is by “either or survivor” the survivor is the only person who is entitled to get the balance thereof after the death of one account holder. Even if there is a nomination in the account, the survivor will get the funds. The nominee gets access to refund only if both account holders die. Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe the same time and again.
Xerox copy of death certificate goes to establish that Pranab Kumar Shyam the Predecessor-in-interest of the present Revisionists/Petitioners and Respondent No. 1 died on 28.04.2020. During his lifetime said Pranab Kumar Shyam made three fixed deposits on 31.05.2011, 26.04.2014 and 21.03.2012 respectively in the joint name of Monika Shyam (wife) and also made another fixed deposit on 31.05.2011 in the joint name of Sonali Gupta (daughter). Said Pranab Kumar Shyam died intestate on 28.04.2020 leaving behind Monika Shyam (widow), Rupkumar Shyam (son) and Sonali Gupta (daughter). The moot question that arises for consideration is whether all the above legal heirs are entitled to get share in those fixed deposits which were made with the mode of operation E or S.
On meticulous perusal of the fixed deposits (Xerox copies) it is palpable that the three fixed deposits being account nos. 31789246210 amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- (issuing date 31.05.2011, maturity date 31.05.2021), 30557287327 amounting to Rs. 50,000/- (date of issue 26.04.2014, date of maturity 13.07.2022), 30081585446 amounting to Rs. 22,267/- (date of issue 21.03.2012, date of maturity 21.03.2022) are lying in the name of Monika Shyam along with Pranab Kumar Shyam (since deceased), another in the name of Pranab Kumar Shyam along with Monika Shyam and the other in the name of Pranab Kumar Shyam along with Monika Shyam respectively. The other term deposit being account no. 31768271671 amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- (issuing date 31.05.2011, date of maturity 27.07.2023) is lying in the joint name of Pranab Kumar Shyam and Sonali Gupta. It is crystal clear from the above mentioned term deposits that all were made in the mode of operation “either or survivor”. Both Monika Shyam (widow) and Sonali Gupta (daughter) the present Revisionists/Petitioners are entitled to get the entire share in respect of the respective term deposits on the ground of the mode of operation (either or survivor). There is nothing to think otherwise. It is the settled principles of law and guidelines of the RBI that the surviving joint holder is the only person who is entitled to get the balance of the term deposits after the death of one of the joint account holders. Nominees’ right arises only after the death of all account holders. Thus being the position of law it can be safely concluded that the surviving joint owner of the term deposits are entitled to get the amount lying with the concerned Bank. Rupkumar Shyam (Respondent No.1/Complainant) is not at all entitled to get share of those term deposits which were made during the lifetime of Pranab Kumar Shyam himself in the joint name of his wife and daughter with the mode of operation “either or survivor”.
Considering all aspects from all angles and having considered the submissions of the Ld. respective Counsels for the respective parties to the Revision Petition and regard being had to the position of law we have no hesitation to conclude that the present Revisionists/Petitioners being added OP Nos. 3 and 4 are certainly entitled to get the entire amount of the respective term deposits along with accrued interest thereon on the very ground of mode of operation “either or survivor”.
The impugned order dated 2nd March, 2023 vide order no. 20 passed by the Ld. Commission below in connection with Complaint Case no. CC/59/2021 deserves interference.
Resultantly, the present Revision Petition succeeds and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the present Revision Petition being RP No. 48/2023 be and the same is allowed on contest but considering the relationship between the parties and the attending circumstances without any order as to costs.
That the impugned order dated 2nd March, 2023 vide order no. 20 passed by the Ld. Commission below in connection with consumer complaint case no. CC/59/2021 is hereby set aside.
All the parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Commission below on 25.01.2024 for receiving further order/orders.
Ld. Commission below is directed to dispose of the complaint case as expeditiously as possible.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Ld. Commission below forthwith for information and taking necessary action.
Let free copy of this order be handed over to all the parties through their respective Ld. Counsels on record.
Registry of this Commission is directed to do the needful.
Interim Order, if any, stands vacated.
Thus, the Revision Petition stands disposed of.
Note accordingly.
