Date of Filing             :    30 January, 2019.

Date of Judgement    :    21 March, 2024.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Master Sujoy Mani, hereinafter called the Complainant, represented by his guardian Smt. Trisandhya Mahapatra (Mani), filed a complaint petition through his guardian Mrs. Trisandhya Mahapatra (Mani) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  (the Act), against (1) the Sub-Post Master, D. S.Lane P O, (2) The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Howrah, (3) the Director of Postal Services & F A A and (4) Smt. Ratna Prasad (Sarkar) (Mani), hereinafter called the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OPs arising out of non-payment of maturity amounts of NSCs and KVPs by the OP Nos. 1 to 3.

            The material facts arising out of the complaint petition and the annexed documents attached with it are, if brief, that the deceased father of the complainant, Late Subhas Ch. Mani, had purchased two KVPs and two NSCs of ₹10,000/- each in the years 2000 and 2001 during his lifetime from the OP-1 and died on 29/06/2002 leaving behind his the then wife Smt. Ratna Mani, the OP-4 as stated herein above, and his minor son Master Sujoy Mani, the complainant of this complaint petition, as his legal heirs. These KVPs and NSCs were supposed to be matured after six years of purchase.  After the death of Subhas Ch. Mani his wife Smt. Ratna Mani left her matrimonial home alone leaving her minor son at the said home.  Due to care and custody of the minor Master Sujoy Mani his paternal aunt Smt. Trisandhya Mahapatra (Mani) applied for order of appointment of guardian under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980 (Act VIII of 1980) before the Hon’ble Additional District Judge, 1^st Court, Howrah.  Hon’ble Addl. Dist. Judge, 1^st Court, Howrah, has been pleased to appoint her the legal guardian of the minor in Misc. Case No. 19/2006 and at the time of filing the instant complaint the said minor Master Sujoy Mani was under care and custody of Smt. Trisandhya Mahapatra (Mani) and living at 36/2, Danesh Seikh Lane, Howrah – 711 109.  The mother of this minor Smt. Ratna Mani later married to one Sri Indrajit Prasad and is living at at present with her new husband at the address given in the cause title for OP – 4. Smt. Trisandhya Mahapatra (Mani) also got order for entitlement of getting family pension in favour of the minor from the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Additional Court, Sealdah, vide Title Suit/Case No. 162 of 2013.  However, after the expiry of the maturity period the said legal guardian approached the OP No. – 1 on several occasions and wrote letters on 29/12/2009, 29/05/2010 and 20/06/2015 so that the maturity amount of the said KVPs and NSCs would be disbursed in favour of the minor.  But every time no positive response had been received.  Lastly on 27/12/2017 she wrote another letter to the OP No. – 1 intending to furnish Indemnity Bond for withdrawal of the maturity amounts which also brought no result.  She then wrote a letter on 13/04/2018 to the A P I O under the OP No. – 2 for settlement of the claim but failed.  Ultimately this instant complaint has been filed with prayers : (i) to direct the OP No. – 1 to disburse the maturity amounts and interests accrued thereon  for the two KVPs and two NSCs, (ii) to direct the OP No. – 1 to pay compensation of ₹2,00,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony, (iii) to pay litigations and other costs along with other relief/reliefs as this Forum/Commission may deem fit and proper.

            Complainant filed copies of (i) the two KVPs and two NSCs issued by OP No. – 1 bearing Nos. 75CC910749, dated 05/05/2000, 86CC712493, dated 26/02/2001, 29EE576091, dated 20/11/2000 and 29EE576055, dated 02/11/2000 respectively, (ii) Order of the Hon’ble ADJ, 1^st Court, Howrah, dated 27/07/2006, (iii) Order on Title Suit/Case No. 162 of 2017 of the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Addl. Court, Sealdah, dated 14/12/2017, (iv) letters issued to the OP-1 by the legal guardian on 27/12/2009, 29/05/2010, 20/06/2015 & 27/12/2017 (v) letter issued to the APIO on 13/04/2018, (vi) two letters issued by the OP-2 to the legal guardian on 17/04/2018 & 24/10/2018 and (vii) letter issued by the OP-1 dated 17/04/2018 as annexure to the complaint petition.

            Notices  were served upon the OPs, after admission, to appear and contest the case by filing their written version.  The OP Nos. – 1 to 3 appeared before this Commission and filed their written version.  Notice with documents which were sent to the OP-4 returned with postal remark “Addressee Left Without Instruction”, then the notice was served through paper publication, but the OP-4 did not participate in this case thereby the case proceeded ex parte against OP-4. Then the complainant filed the Evidence on Affidavit.  Thereafter the OP Nos. – 1 to 3 filed their interrogatories and complainant filed replies. OP Nos. – 1 to 3 then filed their Evidence on Affidavit.  Complainant then filed her interrogatories and OP Nos. – 1 to 3 filed their replies. Ultimately argument was heard in details and the complainant as well as the OP Nos. – 1 to 3 filed their brief Brief Notes on Argument. We have now come to the position to deliver the Final Order in this case.  We have to decide whether the OP is deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant for which the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

DECISION WITH REASONS

            The factual matrix of this case as emerged from the complaint and the annexed documents is that the deceased father of the minor, Late Subhas Ch. Mani, had purchase two Kishan Vikas Patras and two National Savings Certificates and the details are as follows:

                All the above noted certificates bear respective Nomination Registration Number indicating that the respective maturity amounts would be disbursed in favour of the Nominee mentioned thereon when the purchaser died before maturity, except for the KVP bearing No. 75CC910749 which bears a joint holder.  The purchaser, Subhas Mani, died on 29/06/2002.  So, as per regulation, the Nominees would receive the maturity amount except for 75CC910749 as this has a joint holder.  The  guardian of the complainant stated that after receiving the legal guardianship she approached before the OP-1 on 29/12/2009 along with relevant documents requesting to disburse the payable amount for these certificates in favour of the minor son of the deceased holder who is the sole legal heir of the deceased holder.  But the OP-1 did not take any steps.  Her repeated efforts could not bring any fruitful result.  Lastly the OP-2 issued a letter vide No. CPT/How/RTI/12/04/2018, dated 24/10/2018 informing that Sri Sujoy Mani is not the holder/joint holder or nominee of these certificates and thereby the claim in favour of Sri Sujoy Mani or his legal guardian could not be settled. Finding no other alternative this complaint is filed.  

            In their written version the OP Nos. – 1 to 3 denied all the allegations brought forward by the complainant in the complaint petition.  They said that they had not denied to make payment of the maturity amounts.   They stated as per SB Rule 50(1) of Post Office Savings Manual, Volume II, in case the deceased holder had made a nomination and registered the same with the post office, the nominee was eligible to get the amount payable for the two NSCs and one KVP and for the other KVP Smt. Ratna Mani was the surviving holder of the certificate.  As the minor Sujoy Mani was nowhere in these certificates, so the OP-1 was unable to disburse the maturity amounts to him. It is also written in the written version that as per SB Rule 29(3) of Post Office Savings Bank Manual, Volume II, when one of the joint holder dies the payment on a joint type certificate would be made to the survivor being the sole owner of the certificate.  It is also stated in Point No. 14 that the nomination had been registered in the name of Smt. Ratna Mani.  It is also stated therein that as Subhas Chandra Mani died on 29/06/2002 leaving behind his the then wife Smt. Ratna Mani, his minor son Master Sujoy Mani, and his mother as his legal heirs.  It was their duty, as per averments of this written version, to disburse the maturity amounts to the nominee.  It is their contention that the complainant filed this frivolous complaint against them by misleading and suppressing the material facts and for these the instant complaint should be dismissed with costs.

            Now, let us discuss on the following points:

1.         Who is a nominee?

            A nominee, as defined in the Black’s Law dictionary, is a trustee who holds an asset on behalf of the asset owner. The connection between the asset owner and the nominee is that of a principal and an agent. In a principal-agent relationship, the agent acts on behalf of the principal to carry out his obligations on trust, for the benefit of the principal. The parties have a fiduciary relationship in which the agent works on behalf of the principal in the best interests of the principal.

2.         Who is a legal heir?

            According to Section 3(f) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Succession Act”) a legal heir is defined as an individual selected by law to succeed the estate of the deceased in the absence of a will. It is typically used to designate a person who inherits the deceased’s property, either by will or without a will.

                Now, let us take the judgement passed in the Title Suit/Case No. 162 of 2013 the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) has opined: “As such basing upon the unconverted unchallenged testimony of the pw-1, this court is of the opinion the plaintiff has successfully proved that the defendant no. 2 Smt. Ratna Mani, the mother of the plaintiff got remarried.” [Emphasis provided.]  but the date of her remarriage to her present husband Sri Indrajit Pradhan could not be ascertained in this Title Suit. However, it is a material fact the the mother of the minor got remarriage.  As the mother of the minor, the OP No. – 4 in this case, remarried and left her matrimonial abode, so she has lost her claim as legal heir of the deceased person. Yet she is the Nominee in these certificates, as the OP Nos. – 1 to 3 revealed but the complainant stated that the OP – 1 failed to produce the original nomination applications when requested.

            Now a question arises: does Nomination overrule Succession?  To answer this question let us take shelter under these judgements: (1) the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Shakti Yezdani Vs. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar [Appeal No. 313 of 2015],  observed that the legal heirs and not the nominees will obtain the ownership rights of share certificates, effectively circumscribing the scope of the nomination of shares under the provisions of the 1956 Act. The Court clarified that the nomination does not supersede the law of testamentary or intestate succession.  The goal of nomination is to safeguard the deceased’s rights and benefits until the legal representatives can intervene and take the necessary action to defend them. (2) The Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled in Oswal Greentech Vs. Mr. Pankaj Oswal and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 9340 of 2019], that expectation of inheritance of property does not override Nominee’s Rights over the same property.

            Now, let us discuss about the SB Rules under which the OP Nos. – 1 to 3 have taken shelter in their written version, Evidence and B. N. A.

            Rule 50(1):  A claim to the value of a certificate standing in the name of a deceased holder may be made on Adjustment as the case may be can encash the certificate standing in the name of deceased or

the basis of :-

            (a)   Nomination

            (b)   Legal Evidence

            (c) Without the production of legal evidence at the discretion of sanctioning authority up to the limit fixed by Min. of Finance which is ₹1,00,000/- at present.  If the claim exceeds the prescribed limit which is now ₹1,00,000/-, the claimant should be advised to obtain a succession certificate from a competent court of law or produce the probate of a will or letters of Administration of Estate of the deceased.

            Rule 29(3):  When one of the joint holders dies, the payment on a joint type certificate, both joint ‘A’ and joint ‘B’, will be made to the survivor, he being the sole owner of the certificate.  If the survivor desires to avail of facility of nomination, he will have to get the certificate transferred in his name.  A single type certificate will be issued in the name of survivor.  The cancelled certificate will be sent to the Postal Accounts Office along with the Issue Journal.  [For such transfer of certificates governed by POSC Rules, NSCs (I Issue) Rule, 1956.  NSCs (IV Issue) 1970-NSCs (V Issue) Rules, 1973 and ND Bonds Rules, 1977, no fee is due.]

[Emphasis provided, taken from Compilation of POSB Manual Vol-II]

            All these discussions stated above insist us to say that the OP Nos. – 1 to 3 should have to take steps to disburse the maturity amounts in respect of the Certificates bearing Nos. 86CC712493 (KVP), 29EE576091 (NSC) and 29EE576055 (NSC) to the legal heir of the deceased holder considering the judgement passed in the Title Suit/Case No. 162/2013 and considering their own Rule 50(1)(b) or 50(1)(c) as because the judgement in the Title Suit has expressly declared that the minor Sujoy Mani is the only legal heir of the deceased Subhas Chandra Mani and a legal heir is the superior to the nominee, especially when the nominee had not come forward claiming maturity amounts.

            In case of the remaining KVP Certificate bearing number 75CC910749 we cannot interfere with the decision of the OP Nos. – 1 to 3 considering the POSB Rule 29(3) and the Reserve Bank of India’s Guideline issued on 09/07/2005 which says: “The Reserve Bank has advised banks to release the balance amounts in the deceased depositors’ accounts to the "Survivor(s)"/named in the Either or Survivor clause or Nominee without insisting on production of succession certificate, letter of administration,  probate or obtaining any bond of indemnity or surety from the "Survivor(s)" or nominee irrespective of the amount standing to the credit of the deceased account holder. Since this will alleviate hardships faced by people, banks have been advised to give wide publicity and guidance to account holders about the benefit of operating the account under an "Either or Survivor" clause or appointing a nominee. For accounts which do not have ‘Either or Survivor’ clause nor have a nomination, the Reserve Bank has asked banks to fix a minimum threshold limit upto which they could release the balance amount lying in the deceased account holders’ account after obtaining a letter of indemnity and without insisting upon production of any other documents.”  [Emphasis provided]

            In the end we can freely say that, in case of the above stated one KVP and two NSCs, the OP Nos. – 1 to 3 have erred in providing justified service to the legal heir/complainant of the deceased certificate holder despite having been opted for the nomination facility.  So, due to the deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OP Nos. – 1 to 3 the complainant is entitled to get compensation.  Complainant prays for compensation of ₹2,00,000/- together with the interest accrued on the maturity amounts.  But it is a settled principle that when compensation is awarded in the form of interest then awarding both interest and compensation will be unjustified.  So we think interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the maturity amounts will be justified in the present case.  There is no word stating about the age of the minor Master Sujoy Mani the the entire complaint petition.  It is stated in the Order for Guardianship under Act VIII in Misc. Case No. 19/2006 that the date of birth of the minor Master Sujoy Mani is 14/06/1999.  So, at present he is a major and thereby he is entitled to receive the maturity amounts in respect of the one KVP and two NSCs as stated herein above together with 9% p. a. simple interest with effect from the respective dates of maturity.  He is also entitled to receive ₹8,000/- as litigation cost as he has been compelled to file the instant complainant petition through his legal heir to get his grievance be redressed.  In case of the remaining KVP bearing No. 75CC910749 it is the discretion of the OP Nos. 1 to 3 to decide on the disbursement of the payable amount as per existing rules and regulations.

            Hence, it is

ORDERED

            That the complaint Case No. CC/27/2019 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and dismissed ex parte against Opposite Party No. – 4.

            The Opposite Party No. – 1 is directed to pay the complainant the maturity amounts in respect of the Certificates bearing Nos. 86CC712493 (KVP), 29EE576091 (NSC) and 29EE576055 (NSC) along with a simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the respective maturity dates till the date of this order within 60 days from the date of this order.  The Opposite Party No. – 1 is also directed to pay ₹8,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within this abovementioned time period failing which the entire sum shall carry 9% simple interest per annum till full and final realisation.

            Let a copy of this order be issued, on demand, to the parties of both sides free of cost. 

Dictated and corrected by me

            Member.