DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 19th day of December, 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
C.D Case No. 17 of 2016
1. Sri Jayanta Kumar Rout
2. Sri Subrat Kumar Rout
Both are sons of Late Kangali Charan Rout,
Vill: Agarapada,
Po: B.T pur,
Ps: Agarapada,
Dist: Bhadrak
3. Smt. Sujata Behera,
W/o Anam Charan Behera and
D/o Late Kangali Charan Rout
At: Agarapada,
Po: B.T pur,
Ps: Agarapada,
Dist: Bhadrak
Present Address
At: Sakamari, Po: Bartana,
Ps: Khaira, Dist: Balasore
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
2. Branch Manager,
Allahabad Bank, Agarapada Branch,
At: Agarapada,
Po: B.T pur,
Ps: Agarapada,
Dist: Bhadrak
3. Sri Prasanta Kumar Rout
S/o Late Kangali Charan Rout,
Vill: Agarapada,
Po: B.T pur,
Ps: Agarapada,
Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Radhakanta Nayak, Adv & Associates
Counsel For the OP No. 1: Sri Binaya Kumar Swain, Adv & Others
Counsel For the OP No. 2: Sri Narayan Prasad Behera, Adv & Others
Date of hearing: 04.04.2018
Date of order: 19.12.2018
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arose out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The complainants are the legitimate successors of deceased Kangali Chran Rout who had opened deposit account with OP No. 1 nominating complainant No. 3 and OP No. 2 as nominees of the said deposit account vide No- 22078378161. Immediately soon after demise of the depositor, OP No. 1 was categorically requested not to allow any withdrawal from the deposit account and to block the ATM debit card temporarily as the complainants are the legal heirs of the said deceased and they have the legitimate right and interest on the assets and properties of the deceased. But unfortunately the OP No. 1, without caring for the request of the complainants, has allowed withdrawal with malafide intention and vested interest which is illegal and bad in law and also contravenes the guide lines issued by Reserved Bank of India. The undue favour given to OP No. 2 for withdrawal of Rs 1,00,000/- from the account of the deceased depositor is a clear violation of RBI circulars and guide lines. In order to refrain OP No. 1 from such illegal activities, the complainants have also issued intimation/served notice upon the bank just few days after the death of depositor but the said OP did not care for the instruction with an ulterior motive which amounts to deficiency of service and violating the prevailing rules and settled principles of law is an act of unfaire trade practice restored by OP No. 1. When the OP bank did not care for the intimation issued by the complainant, finding no other way the complainant filed this case praying for proper adjudication and to direct OP No. 2 to refund the amount withdrawn by him from the deceased account.
Both the O.Ps executed power in favour of their advocates who appeared on the date fixed. OP No. 1, the bank, did not appear in the Forum till 23.05.2017 as a result of which he was set ex-parte. OP No. 2, Sri Prasanta Kumar Panda, filed objection on dt. 19.07.2016 on the points of allegation wherein he has challenged the maintainability of the case and suppression of material facts for which the case is liable to be dismissed. In disclosing the facts, OP No. 2 has stated that the deceased depositor Kangali Charan Rout passed away on dt. 29.12.2015 when he was under the treatment and direct supervision of a doctor and passed away leaving behind 3 sons and two daughters but none of them only other than the answering OP were with the deceased depositor as they were staying away from home for last 5 years and only the answering OP and his wife were taking care and looking after his ailing father for more than 5 years and the deceased, being pleased, had nominated OP No. 2 as nomine of the depositor and as such OP No. 2 is entitled to draw the amount left behind his deceased father under the provisions of prevailing policy of the banks. Therefore OP No. 2 is at liberty to operate the account of his deceased father maintained with OP No. 1 bank. Finally OP No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of the case and to allow him to withdraw the amount from the said account of his deceased father maintained in OP No. 1 bank.
We have gone through the complaint, written statement in the form of objection filed by OP No. 2, materials available on record and observed as narrated below.
1. It is evident from the death certificate issued by Register of Birth and Death, Agarapada CHC that the deceased depositor Kangali Charan Rout passed away on 29.12.2015 and he is claimed to be the father of complainants and OP No. 2. All of them claim to be the legal heirs of the deceased and entitled to share the assets in equal proportions left behind there deceased father. The certificate issued by Sarapancha Purusandha Gram Panchayat on 14.01.2016 disclosing the facts that Late Kangali Charan Rout is survived by 3 sons and two daughters who are the claimants of assets and liabilities of the deceased.
2. The complainants have alleged that their deceased father has a SB deposit account in Allahabad Bank, Agarapada Branch (OP No. 1) vide account No- 22078378161 and had a balance outstanding of around Rs 7,00,000/- as on the date of death of the depositor. It is further alleged by the complainants that OP No. 2 has withdrawn the amount from the said account after the death of the depositor which is an act of violation of guidelines and circulars issued by RBI. Furthermore, despite intimation issued to OP No. 1 by the complainants not to allow withdrawal from the deceased account, the said OP has allowed withdrawal from the deposit account to OP No. 2 which contravenes the settled provision of law.
On the contrary OP No. 2 stated that he, being the nominee of the deposit account, is entitled to withdraw from his deceased father’s account which is permitted by banking law and as such there is no legal impediment to withdraw the money. Protesting the version of OP No. 2 complainants cited a decision of Hon’ble High Court of Odisha in OJC No- 8913 of 2000 decided on 12.04.2002 wherein it is held that “the nominee does not acquire any interest during the life time of policy holder. On the death of policy holder, the amount payable under the policy becomes part of his estate which is governed by law of succession applicable to him.” Further the Hon’ble Court has held that “the amount shall be payable to nominee or nominees does not mean that the amount shall belong to nomine nominees.” The complainants therefore claims that they, being the legal heirs of the deceased father, have right on the assets and liabilities left behind the deceased father and nominees of the depositor are not sole proprietor of the balance outstanding in the deposit account of the deceased depositor. Heard the parties and perused materials on record and observed that no material evidence is made available about the amount of balance outstanding in SB account No- 22078378161 as on the date of death of depositor and reference on nominees and the amount withdrawn from the account during post death period. In order to get the above points solved this Forum directed to OP No. 1 for submission of accounts opening form and accounts statement of the aforesaid deposit account but the said OP did not turn up to file the documents for proper adjudication of the case nor even filed written version till the date of final hearing of the case which leads to believe that OP No. 1 has internationally and deliberately avoided to appear before the Forum and to submit written version and other documents as sought for. Therefore it is believed that OP No.1 has committed some sorts of irregularities and has given some undue favour to OP No. 2. It is also a matter to be considered that in absence of a legal heir certificate or a succession certificate from the competent authority, the amount outstanding in the account as on the date of death could not be disbursed or no withdrawal could be allowed.
In view of the above facts and detail analysis made on the facts of the complaint, OP No. 1 is to be restrained to allow further withdrawal from the account and if allowed earlier, would be considered as illegal which must be recovered. In the process of adjudication of this case, OP No. 1 is found to have caused deficiency of service and has been proved a negligent in performing it’s legitimate duties with due diligence. Hence it is ordered;
- ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed ex-parte against OP No. 1. OP No. 1 is directed to hold up the SB account No- 22078378161 and not to allow any withdrawal from the said account and recover the amount, if any, withdrawn from the SB account with effect from the date of death of the depositor. Further complainants are directed to submit the succession certificate to OP No. 1 bank for final disbursement of the amount outstanding in their deceased father’s A/c among the successors. Further OP No. 1 is directed to pay Rs 2,000/- as cost of litigation. This order must be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 19th December, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
