Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/168/2019

Reena Devi W/o Shiv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Guggal

20 May 2019

ORDER

CC No.168 of 2019.

Smt. Reena Devi vs. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank.

 

Present:    Complainant with Sh.RK Guggal, Adv.

                               

1.              Heard.

2.             Admitted facts of the complaint are, her husband Sh.Shiv Kumar was having saving bank account bearing No.8331011006213 in the respondent bank, photocopy of the pass book is annexure C.2 and he obtained insurance policy through respondent bank and her husband at the time of proposing for the insurance policy known as “Pardhan Mantri Beema Yojna” nominated her as his nominee.  Her husband Shiv Kumar expired on 19.4.2018 and after the death of her husband, she intimated to the respondent bank and submitted all the papers, but the respondents did not settle her claim which constrained her to serve legal notice dated 2.4.2018 annexure C.6 upon the respondent and they gave reply annexure C.8 to issue legal notice and advising her to submit succession certificate from the competent authority which necessitated her to file the complaint.

3.             Before issuance of any process against the respondent, counsel for complainant was impressed upon to produce complainant in person before this Forum, who appeared before the Forum on today and admitted Smt. Roshni Devi her mother-in-law is alive and has also raised claim qua the policy obtained by her son (husband of complainant) since deceased under PMBY.  This fact is also transpired from the reply annexure C.8 given by the respondent to the legal notice annexure C.6 issued by the complainant.

4.              The moot question before this Forum, is whether the dispute raised by the complainant is consumer disputed?

5.             From the statement of the complainant and her own document annexure C.8 leave no doubt Smt. Roshni Devi her mother-in-law also raised claim qua same policy.  Prima facie, it appears to the

Forum it is a dispute with regard to succession of deceased Shiv Kumar husband of the complainant and whenever there is a dispute between the nominee and the legal heir, then, law of succession will supersede the right of nominee. View of this Forum is fully supported by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India of Smt. Sarbati Devi & another vs. Smt. Usha Devi AIR 1984 SC 346.

6.             Since, dispute raised by the complainant, prima facie is not a consumer dispute within the definition of consumer dispute under section 2 of the Act.  It is dispute of succession of Sh.Shiv Kumar since deceased, husband of the complainant. Therefore, complaint is dismissed, at this stage and complainant is left at liberty to apply for succession certificate under Indian Succession Act, 1925 in the court of competent jurisdiction and in her application for succession certificate, she will implead her children and her mother-in-law Smt. Roshni Devi, as necessary parties and after submission of succession certificate with the respondent bank, in case her claim qua policy obtained by deceased Shiv Kumar is not considered by the bank or insurance policy concerned, then, she may invoke jurisdiction of this Forum. File be consigned to the records.