The case of the complainant is that the maternal grand-mother of the complainant namely Chander Kanta wife of Mani Ram had purchased one STDR through her account No. 37632240703 on 5.4.2019 for an amount of Rs. 2,12,110/- from OP and the maturity date of the said STDR was 5.4.2020. On the maturity date the OP was to pay an amount of Rs. 2,29,098/-. The complainant was registered as nominee by Chander Kanta on 20.9.2019 and a note was also given by the OP Bank on the original STDR in this regard. Chander Kanta the grandmother of the complainant had died on 28.10.2020 and after her death the complainant became the lawful owner of the said amount being nominee of deceased Chander Kanta. The complainant applied with OP to claim the amount lying in the shape of STDR in the name of Chander Kanta on 13.7.2021. The complainant completed all the formalities and submitted all the required documents to the OP as demanded by it. Firstly OP recommended the claim of the complainant and after that refused to pay STDR amount without any reason. 

It is admitted case of OP that one Mrs. Chander Kanta wife of Mani Ram resident of water Works Road, Mansa had obtained one STDR on 5.4.2019 for a sum of Rs. 2,13,110/- and she appointed her daughter Sejal as Nominee. But the complainant is not appointed as nominee in above STDR, as Sejal (complainant) is granddaughter of the Chander Kanta. As such, the complainant has no right to get the amount of STDR in question as nominee from the OP Bank.  Hence OP/Bank has denied to pay the amount of STDR to the complainant. It is admitted by the OP that some officials of the OP Bank has recommended to pay the amount to the complainant due to same name of the nominee in the STDR, but later on it has come into the knowledge of OP by inquired deeply the bank record that the complainant is not same person. The daughter of the Chander Kanta STDR holder, who is nominee, hence the payment was not done to the complainant as she is not nominee as per bank record.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file very carefully.

The complainant alleged that she is nominee of the Chander Kanta. To prove her case the complainant has placed on record copy of STDR Exhibit C-1. It reveals that one Sejal is the nominee of Mrs. Chander Kanta, who obtained STDR from the bank on 5.4.2019. It reveals that the maturity date of the STDR is 5.4.2020. An amount of Rs. 2,13,110/- was to pay on the date of maturity to the STDR holder or in case of death the amount was to pay to the nominee. Exhibit C-2 is a photocopy of death certificate of Chander kanta. It reveals that Chander Kanta had died on 28.10.2020. Exhibit C-3 is a photocopy of Claim as nominee for payment. The complainant has filled up the said form (Annexure-II) for payment as nominee on 13.7.2021. We have gone through the Annexure-II and perused the same. It reveals that the employees of the OP recommend to pay the amount of STDR to the nominee Sejal. 

The onus was on the OP to prove his case as the complainant is not a nominee of the Chander Kanta. OP Bank has placed on a file Exhibit OP-2 copy of nominee details. It reveals that the relation of the nominee/complainant with the Chander Kanta was a Daughter not granddaughter. The OP Bank failed to prove that any other person has come forward to claim STDR amount except Sejal/ complainant. There is no document on the file which prove that the daughter of the Chander Kanta has come forward to claim the STDR amount. When nobody has come forward to claim the amount of the STDR as nominee of Chander Kant, then why bank has any hesitation to release the STDR amount to Sejal.  OP/Bank has failed to prove that the name of the complainant is not a Sejal and she is wrongly claiming the amount of the STDR. As per Exhibit C-2 Chander Kanta has died on 28.10.2020 but the complainant has visited the bank on 13.7.2021. During this period nobody has come forward to claim the STDR amount except the complainant, Sehal. If the Chander Kanta has nominee except the complainant, then he should have been approached the Bank to claim the amount of STDR. But nobody has challenged the complainant as she is not the nominee of Chander Kanta. As per our opinion the bank should have been released the amount to the complainant without any objection, when there was no objection from anybody/any person.

In view of the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is partly allowed. The OP is directed to release the amount of STDR to the complainant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order against the surety bond and indemnity bond. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs under the rules and file be indexed and consigned to record.