BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 07/11/2013
Date of Order : 16/07/2014
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
C.C. No. 771/2013
Between
1. Malavika Varma, | :: | Complainant |
D/o. Nandakumar Varma, Sree Niketh, Old Thevara Road, Ravipuram, Ernakulam – 682 016. 2. Madhavika Varma (Minor), D/o. Nandakumar Varma, Sree Niketh, Old Thevara Road, Ravipuram, Ernakulam – 682 016, Rep. by her father and natural guardian Nanadakumar Varma. | | (Compts. by Adv. Thomas T. Varghese, T.D. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin – 682 011.) |
And
The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, | :: | Opposite Party |
Church Landing Road, Pallimukku, Ernakulam – 682 016. | | (By Adv. T.P. Ramachandran (Thacheth), Thengumoottil Building, Opp. High Court of Kerala, Kochi – 682 031.) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows :-
The complainants are sisters, their maternal aunt Ms. Bhadra Varma died on 04-10-2011. She was unmarried and she had no issues. Ms. Bhadra Varma was a customer of the opposite party. She had savings account and fixed deposit accounts with the opposite party. The details are as follows :-
1. SB Account No. 1929337240.
2. SB Account No. 1929301144 jointly with the complainant's mother
Shobhana Nandakumar.
3. FD No. 3087113570 (QIDR) of Rs. 40,000/-
4. FD No. 3070167046(MMDC) of Rs. 64,663/-
5. FD No. 3078811532 (MMDC) of Rs. 25,000/-
6. FD No. 350021 QIDR of Rs. 50,000/-
7. FD No. 350020 QIDR of Rs. 50,000/-
8. FD No. 6 Central Tax Savings of Rs. 1,00,000/-
9. FD No. 3500296 (MMDC) of Rs. 77,712/- jointly with
complainant's mother Shobhana Nandakumar.
10. FD No. 3500113/24908 (MMDC) of Rs. 60,000/- jointly with
complainant's mother Shobhana Nandakumar.
Ms. Bhadra Varma had executed and registered Will Deed No. 373/2009 in the Sub-Registrar's Office, Ernakulam bequeathing all her assets to the complainants. So, the complainants are entitled for amounts standing to the credit of Ms. Bhadra Varma in the above accounts by virtue of the Will Deed. The father of the complainants submitted a letter to the opposite party on 08-11-2012 requesting the opposite party to initiate necessary procedure to transfer the account of the deceased in favour of the complainants. As directed by the opposite party, the original Will Deed was produced by him. In spite of that, the opposite party failed to disburse the deposits of Ms. Bhadra Varma in favour of the complainants. Thus, the complainants are before us seeking direction against the opposite party to transfer the savings bank account and fixed deposit accounts of Ms. Bhadra Varma to the names of the complainants and also to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainants. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows :-
It is true that late Bhadra Varma was maintaining the deposit accounts with the opposite party. All the deposit accounts maintained with the opposite party except FD mentioned under serial Nos. 8,9 and 10 above were having nominees facility and the depositor had availed the said facility and duly registered the name of nominee, who are entitled to receive the proceeds of each deposit on the demise of the depositor. The opposite party is legally bound to pay the proceeds of each such deposit to the nominees to the exclusion of all others. The complainants are not legally entitled to get the proceeds of the deposits as they are not the nominees duly registered as per the existing Nomination Rules except in the case of serial No. 1 account. The deposit mentioned as item No. 9 and 10 were closed and proceeds were released to the respective survivors as the said deposits were payable on maturity, to 'either or survivor'. The complainants are not entitled to get any of the relief as prayed for.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and went through the documents on record. According to the learned counsel for the complainants, on the strength of the Will Deed No. 373/2009 of S.R.O., Ernakulam dated 06-10-2009, the complainants are entitled for the amounts standing to the credit of Ms. Bhadra Varma in the accounts maintained with the opposite party. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently and vigorously contended that late Bhadra Varma had availed nomination facility and the respective nominees are entitled to get the amount disbursed. The counsel relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarbati Devi. Vs. Usha Devi AIR 1984 SC 346.
4. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the complainants being the legatees in the Will or the nominees in the deposits are entitled to get the amounts disbursed from the opposite party as per the deposits of the deceased depositor?
5. A nominee in an insurance policy is the person who will receive the proceeds of the policy if the insured person dies during thecurrency of the policy. A nominee has no right in the proceeds of the insurance policy, except as a trustee holding the proceeds on behalf of the legal heirs of the insured. A nominee exists only for convenience purposes, so that the proceeds can be transferred to the legitimate beneficiaries. If a nominee is also one of the legal heirs, then the nominee can take their own proportionate share as entitled to them under the prevailing law and pass on the balance to the other legal heirs. If in a Will the insured has specified the beneficiary of the insurance proceeds, then the Will take precedence over any nomination that might have been made. By interpreting Section 39 of the Insurance Act 1938, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi Vs. Usha Devi (Supra), held that “We approve the views expressed by the other High Courts on the meaning of S.39 of the Act and hold that a mere nomination made under S.39 of the Act does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them.”
6. As per Section 39 of the Insurance Act, the insurance company must hand over the amount to the nominee mentioned in the policy. The nominee is expected to distribute it to the legal heirs listed in the policy holder's Will. In the absence of a Will, individual succession laws come into play.
7. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held in Saraswathi Amma Vs. Padmavathi Amma AIR 1993 Ker 198, that “a nominee is only a trustee for legal heirs', and the right of the legal heirs cannot be taken away by nomination.”
8. In Ramachandra Talwar and another Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar and Others (2010) 10 SCC 671 by distinguishing Section 45-ZA of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :-
“Section 45-ZA (2) merely puts the nominee in the shoes of the depositor after his death and clothes him with the exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. It gives him all the rights of the depositor so far as the depositor's account is concerned. But it by no stretch of imagination makes the nominee the owner of the money lying in the account. It needs to be remembered that the Banking Regulation Act is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking. It is in no way concerned with the question of succession. All the moneys receivable by the nominee by virtue of Section 45-ZA (2) would, therefore, form part of the estate of the deceased depositor and devolve according to the rule of succession to which the depositor may be governed. In view of the settled position, it has to be observed that the nominee can only collect the money from the Government in which the money was deposited and he cannot appropriate the sum inherited and that the legal heirs of the deceased would be entitled to their respective share as per law governing them.”
9. In view of the above, a nominee in a bank deposit can only receive the money of a bank depositor who has died, but the person cannot claim to be the absolute owner of the money lying in the account. The money lying deposited in the account of the deceased should be distributed among the legal heirs in accordance with the Succession Act of the respective community and the nominee cannot claim right over it.
10. According to law, the legatee in a Will is entitled for the amount provided the Will is the last genuine Will of the deceased. The opposite party is legally liable to disburse the amount to the legatee of the Will after obtaining the certificate of probate/Letters of Administration Certificate of the Will from the proper Court, especially in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Narayani Amma Vs. Saraswathy Amma 1991 (1) KLT 450. The Hon'ble High Court held that, “nomination made in favour of one, will not deprive the legal representatives of their right to claim the amount as per the fixed deposit.”
11. In view of the above legal proposition approved by the Apex Judiciary, we are only to hold that it would be open to the complainants being the legatees of the Will of the deceased depositor to apply to the opposite party for release of the amounts as per the deposits on production of certificate of probate/Letters of Administration Certificate of the Will duly issued by a competent Court of Law.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16th day of July 2014.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
