Corrected copy of judgement passed in RA/11/2022 dated 12.12.2022​

1. The complainant and her brother Swapan Kumar Bhattacherjee (now dead) kept on 29.03.2019 with the OP Bank substantial amount under two fixed deposit accounts being No. 38359340540 under “Either or Survivor” mandate and the said amount was due to attain maturity on 29.03.2023 (after gap of 4 years). The maturity value to which they would be entitled is Rs. 5,00,000/-  +  Rs. 5,00,000/- totalling Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Ops are the State Bank of India (OP 1) and its Branch Manager (OP 2) having office at Shyamnagar Road Swapan Kumar Bhattacherjee died on 25.06.2020 and the complainant approached OP Bank for premature encashment of the fixed deposit shortly thereafter. But the Ops were found to pick up different pleas at different points of time to avoid the request of the complainant and finally they informed the complainant that without the concurrence of the legal heirs of Swapan Kumar Bhattacherjee premature withdrawal of the amount deposited for a fixed term cannot be allowed in view of the banking rules. This is why the complainant has filed this case seeking direction upon the Ops to make payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with all benefits and interests in connection with the term deposit certificate being No. 38359340903 and 38359340540 and also with compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 30,000/- and other reliefs.

2. The Ops filed W/Vs, questionnaire and Brief Notes Argument to contest the case. The averment made by the complainant in the petition of complaint have been denied by the Ops and it is clearly been asserted thereunder that the proceeds of the fixed deposit cannot be paid only to the surviving, account holder even if it was made under either E or S mandate.

3. In support of their case the complainant has filed evidence in chief, BNA, copies of the fixed deposit certificates, copies of letter sent to and received from the Ops bank etc. Evidence in chief and the Notes of Argument have been challenged by the other side. But the rest part of the documents on record have gone unchallenged. It is an admitted fact that the Ops declined to make payment to the survivor, without the concurrence of the legal heirs of Swapan Kumar Bhattacherjee. It is also not in dispute that the legal heirs of Swapan Kumar Bhattacherjee have registered objection with the Ops against the prayer of the complainant for premature encashment of the fixed deposits.

4. It has been contended by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Ops that premature release of any fixed term deposit in favour of the survivor account holder is not permissible as per banking norms and the concurrence of the legal heirs of the deceased account holder is necessary for doing so. He has also relied upon Clause 5.8.6.1 of the DBR – Master Circular of Customer Service in Banks 2015 in support of his submission. It has clearly been clarified “that if fixed/term deposit accounts are opened with operating instruction ‘Either or Survivor’, the signatures of both the depositors need not be obtained for payment of the amount of the deposits on maturity. However, the signatures of both the depositors may have to be obtained, in case the deposit is to be paid before maturity. If the operating instruction is “Either or Survivor” and one of the depositors expires before the maturity, no pre-payment of the fixed-term deposit may be allowed without the concurrence of the legal heirs of the deceased joint holder. This, however, would not stand in the way of making payment to the survivor on maturity.” It is thus abundantly palpable that the Ops had the reason to turn down the prayer of the complainant for premature withdrawal, although he was covered by the ‘E or S’ mandate. In support of his submission that the complainant had and has such a right without the concurrence of the legal heirs of the deceased account holder, the Ld. Advocate of the complainant has cited a batch of decisions including AIR 1990 ALL 103, the judgement passed in Writ Petition No. 2664/2007 by Calcutta High Court on 20.09.2009, decision passed in the case between Lal Singh Depgem Vs. Palo and Ors. by Jharkhand High Court of 01.02.1990 and the judgement passed by Madras High Court in O.S. Appeal No. 60/1973 dated 18.06.1974 etc. But on perusal of these judgements, it appears that the point involved in those cases are together different from the point in our hand. That a part those judgements saw the light of the day long before the promulgation of Clause 5.8.6.1 of the DBR – Master Circular of Customer Service in Banks 2015. Therefore, neither ratio nor the obiter dicta as pronounced by the aforesaid Hon’ble High Court cannot and does not have any bearing upon this case. Keeping an eye open to the aforesaid Clause 5.8.6.1 of the DBR – Master Circular of Customer Service in Banks 2015 it can safely be opined that the bank was justified in refusing to release the fund from the fixed deposit in favour of the complainant without the concurrence of the legal heirs of Swapan Kumar Bhattacherjee. Bank’s decision as communicated to the complainant appears to be well founded one and does not leave any room to interfere with. On an overall consideration of the material available on record in the light of the contention canvased by the Ld. Advocate and also in view of the legal position, it is found that the complainant has not acquired any exclusive right to effect premature withdrawal without the concurrence of the legal heirs of the account holder. The case as such cannot succeed.

5. Hence, it is ordered that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest; but without cost.

Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT