West Bengal

Bankura

CC/54/2024

Bhadu Bauri - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Ardhendu Sekhar Ghosh

10 Sep 2024

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No.54/2024

        Date of Filing:  09/07/2024

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                                     Ld. President      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui                     Ld. Member

For the Complainant:Ld. Advocate Ld. Ardhendu Sekhar Ghosh

For the O.P.: Ld. Advocate Prasun Kumar Bandyopadhyay

 

 Complainant:

1. Bhadu Bauri, W/O.- Nitai Bauri
2. Hemanta Bauri, S/O.- L. Nitai Bauri
3. Ananta Bauri, S/O.- L. Nitai Bauri
4. Dipankar Bauri, S/O.- L. Nitai Bauri

All of Village - Shyampur, P.O. & P.S- Mejia, Dist.- Bankura, PIN - 722143, Mob- 8649886694.   

Opposite Party:                                                                                                                                                

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mutual Fund Office, Nutanchati, 1^st Floor of SBI Branch, P.O.,  P.S. & Dist.- Bankura, 722101.

 

                                                                      FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT                                                                                                                                                           

Order No.05

Dated:10-09-2024

Both parties file hazira through Advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainants’ case is that their predecessors-in-interest Nitai Bauri invested Rs.3 Lakh on 30/10/2018 in 124G SBI Equity Hybrid Mutual Fund with O.P./Bank bearing Port Folio No.20518963 but said Nitai Bauri expired  intestate on 30/12/2018 leaving behind the Complainants as his Legal Heirs and Representatives and the aforesaid debt. Accordingly the Complainants preferred claim before the O.P./Bank for refund of the proceeds of said mutual fund but the O.P./Bank refused to part with the same without production of Succession Certificate.  O.P./Bank stick to their stand even after receipt of Legal notice dated: 01/06/2024. The Complainants have therefore approached this Commission for appropriate relief.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Contd……p/2

Page: 2

O.P./Bank contested the case by filing a written version reiterating the same point for non-disbursement of the mutual fund claim in favour of the Complainants/Claimanats.

-: Decision with reasons:-

Having regard to the facts of the case, contention, submission, and documents on both sides the Commission finds that the Complainants being the Legal Heirs and Representatives of said deceased Nitai Bauri, as is evident from the Certificate issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat, are entitled to the proceeds of the mutual fund investment of Rs.3 Lakh as on the death of the Investor but the question is whether the debt of the deceased can be released in favour of the Complainants/Claimants without the production of Succession Certificate.

It is no doubt true that under the relevant Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the RBI Guidelines the Bank Authority has an obligation to ask for Succession Certificate to release the debt of deceased Investor in favour of the Successors-in-interest beyond certain limit of claim which is Rs.1 Lakh as contended by the Ld. Advocate for the O.P./Bank.

Section 214(1) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 has also provided such prohibition to the following effect: -

“No court shall pass a decree against a Debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming on succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to any part thereof except on the production of a Succession Certificate granted under Part-X and having the debt specified therein.”

It is therefore the clear position of Law and Banking Rules that without production of Succession Certificate the debt of the deceased lying in the custody of the Bank Authority cannot be released in favour of the Complainants/Claimants subject to certain limit. But the fact is different when the Complainants/Claimants approach the Commission as Consumers seeking the same relief which the Complainants/Claimants are entitled to place before the competent Court of Law or the Bank Authority.

                                                                                                                                                                                Contd……P/3

Page: 3

Aforesaid Section-214 of Indian Succession Act has put an embargo on the Court to pass such claim order without production of Succession Certificate but the Commission is undoubtedly not a Court but a Tribunal constituted under the Consumer Protection Act to serve the purpose of Consumers and protect their interests. The Commission however does not find any deficiency in service of the O.P./Bank Authority in declining the disbursement of the claim amount of the Complainants but the Commission treating the Complainants as bona fide customers of the O.P./Bank Authority is inclined to grant the mutual fund benefit arising out of the debt of the Investor without any requirement for production of Succession Certificate in the greater interest of substantial justice to uphold the interest of the Consumers as a special case not to be considered as a precedent. The Commission while relaxing the condition to get the claim in such manner directs the Complainants to furnish an Indemnity Bond on Affidavit to the extent of the sanctioned claim amount before the O.P./Bank Authority with confirmation of their legal heirship to avoid any conflicting claim in future.

Hence it is ordered…….

That the case be and the same is disposed of on contest but without cost by directing  the O.P./Bank  to release the proceeds of the mutual fund investment in question in favour of the Complainants in equal share or to the nominated person(s) among themselves subject to furnishing Indemnity Bond on Affidavit as directed above  within a month from this date in default law will take its own course.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Order free of cost.

 

    __________________                                     ________________        

 HON’BLE   PRESIDENT                           HON’BLE    MEMBER