Haryana

Karnal

CC/242/2022

Deepak Patni - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Goel

03 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.242 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.22.04.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 03.09.2024

 

Deepak Patni son of late Shri Jagmohan Lal Patni, resident of house no.1324 sector 17 HUDA Faridabad.

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

State Bank of India main Branch, The Mall Road, Shakti Colony, Karnal.

 

                                                                  …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Vishal Goel, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Sudershan Chaudhary, counsel for the OP.

 

                     (Sarvjeet Kaur, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that the mother of complainant namely Sudershan Patni wife of late Shri Jabmohan Patni was resident in house no.718, sector-13 Urban Estate Karnal and she was having a bank PPF account with the OP, old account no.11/1400 and new account no.10868541960 in her name and she was maintaining the same. The mother of complainant has given the name of complainant as her nominee in her aforesaid account. It is pertinent to mention here that a sum of Rs.15,77,464/- is standing in the said account on 31.03.2021. Now the mother of complainant has been died on 29.06.2021. After the death of Smt. Sudershan Patni (mother of complainant), the complainant visited to the OP. The OP demanded application form for settlement of claim alongwith other documents such as letter of indemnity, affidavit of neighbourer, letter of disclaimer, death certificates of Sudershan Patni and father of complainant namely Jagmohan Lal Patni. Complainant submitted all these documents in the branch of OP but to harass and humiliate the complainant, the OP started demanding legal heirs certificate duly attested by Tehsildar Karnal. Then complainant submitted the legal heirs certificate with the  OP but still after submitting all these documents OP was not satisfied and started demanding one surety alongwith valuation of property of that surety from approved valuer and told the complainant to arrange one person as identifier who is having bank account in same branch, though there is no need for complainant to complete these formalities told by the OP, as he is the nominee in the said PPF account, the complainant again completed these formalities. Not only this the complainant has submitted the document i.e. public notice by which one brother of complainant was disowned by the mother and father of the complainant and also submitted the copy of the newspaper in which such disown notice was published and submitted all documents to the officials and requested to release the amount on account of deceased Sudershan Patni in favour of complainant being her nominee, whereas the other legal heirs of Sudershan Patni also given their affidavit in favour of complainant and same were also given to the OP, but OP is not releasing the amount in account of deceased to the complainant knowingly and willfully. Neither OP is releasing the amount in favour of complainant nor giving any letter of denial to the complainant by which they had denied to release amount of PPF account exclusively in the name of complainant. It is nominee who becomes entitled to all the rights of sole depositor to the exclusion of other legal heirs unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in prescribed manner. Now the OP is taking a ground that in the new pass book there is no name of nominee but not considered that deceased Sudershan Patni during her life time neither varied the nomination nor cancelled the same and it is due to on fault of OP that they have not shown name of nominee in the new passbook. Not only this, OP had also returned the original documents to the complainant. Due to this act and conduct of OP, complainant has suffered great mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the Smt. Sudershan Patni wife of late Shri Jagmohan Patni was having a PPF account with the OP in her name and she was maintaining the same. Smt. Sudershan Patni has died on 29.06.2021 (as per death certificate provided by the complainant to the OP). The complainant approached the OP and produced certain documents regarding claim of said PPF account of his mother. The complainant has also produced legal heirs certificate, in which four persons i.e. Yogesh Kumar (son), Rakesh Kumar Patni (son), Poonam Miglani (daughter) and Deepak Patni (son) have been shown as legal heirs of Sudershan Patni. The complainant has also produced a news paper in which it has been shown that Yogesh Kumar has been disowned by his father Shri Jagmohan Lal Patni. The OP requested the complainant to submit the succession certificate of Smt. Sudershan Patni regarding the abovesaid PPF account as the name of the complainant is not entered as nominee in the abovesaid PPF account but complainant has not produced the same, hence the claim of the complainant is premature and there is no deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of claim settlement form Ex.C1, copy of Form-G Ex.C2, copy of letter of indemnity Ex.C3, affidavit of surety Ex.C4, copy of letter of Disclaimer Ex.C5, affidavit of Jagmohan and Sudershan Ex.C6, copy of death certificate of Sudershan Patni Ex.C7, copy of death certificate of Jagmohan Lal Patni Ex.C8, copy of application of legal heir Ex.C9, affidavit of Rakesh Patni Ex.C10, aadhar card of Prem Kumar Ex.C11, aadhar card of Sahil Goel Ex.C12, copy of Public Notice Ex.C13, copy of provisional receipt Ex.C14, affidavit of legal heirs Ex.C15, aadhar card of Rakesh Kumar Patni Ex.C16, copy of aadhar card of Deepak Patni Ex.C17, copy of aadhar card of Poonam Miglani Ex.C18, copy of aadhar card of Tanish Wadhwa Ex.C19, copy of aadhar card of Rma Ahuja Ex.C20, copy of Aadhar card of Lakshay Wadhwa Ex.C21, copy of Valuation Report Ex.C22, copy of collection rate year 2021-2022 Ex.C23, copy of bank passbook of Sudershan Patni Ex.C24 and Ex.C25 and closed the evidence on 20.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sahil Sukhija Ex.OP1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 03.04.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned for the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that mother of complainant was having PPF account with the OP. The complainant is nominee in the said account. A sum of Rs.15,77,464/- is lying in the said account on 31.03.2021. The mother of complainant has expired on 29.06.2021. After death, the complainant approached to the OP and submitted all the required documents but OP did not  release the claim amount and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the case law titled as Ram Chander Talwar Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar in Civil Appeal no.1684 of 2004, date of decision 06.10.2010 of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that Smt. Sudershal Patni was having a PPF account with the OP and she died on 29.06.2021. The complainant approached the OP and submitted legal heirs’ certificate, in which four persons are legal heirs of account holder. The OP requested the complainant to submit the succession certificate of Smt. Sudershan Patni regarding the abovesaid PPF account as the name of the complainant is not entered as nominee in the abovesaid PPF account but complainant has not produced the same, hence the claim of the complainant is premature and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the mother of complainant was having a PPF account with the OP. It is also admitted that she died on 29.06.2021.

11.           Complainant has alleged that he is the nominee in the PPF account of her mother and after her death, being a nominee, is entitled for the amount of Rs.15,77,464/-,  which is lying in the PPF account.  The Onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant, but complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on the file that complainant is the nominee in the said PPF account or that he is only entitled for the amount lying in the said PPF account. Rather, complainant himself submit legal heir certificate before the OP in which four persons namely Yogesh Kumar (son), Rakesh Kumar Patni (son), Poonam Miglani (daughter) and Deepak Patni (son) have been shown as legal heirs of Sudershan Patni. The claim has been denied by the OP only on the ground that the Succession Certificate has not been submitted by the complainant. The OP is still ready to release the claimed amount, if the complainant submitted the Succession Certificate.

12.          Furthermore, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant without impleading the other LRs as a party, which are necessary.  It is not the case of complainant that he is only the legal heir of the deceased and there are no other LRs of the deceased. Thus, the present complaint is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Neither present complaint filed by all the LRs nor complainant submitted the Succession Certificate to the OP, hence the present complaint is premature at this stage.

13.          The case law cited by the learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

14.          Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being premature. However, complainant is at liberty either to submit the Succession Certificate to the OP or to file a fresh complaint by impleading all the legal heirs, on the same cause of action, if so desired. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated:03.09.2024

         President,

      District Consumer Disputes                           

      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                   ( Neeru Agarwal)            (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                          Member                        Member