PER MR.H.K.BHAISE, HON’BLE MEMBER

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, her sister Nanki G.Chandnani had kept fixed deposit amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on 14^th May, 2001 with the opponent/Bank.  The said Nanki expired on 4^th August, 2001.  The complainant and Ms. Lachmi Gehani are the sisters and Mr.Ramesh Kishanchand is the brother of Late Nanki.  Husband of Nanki died on 1^st November, 1998 i.e. prior to Nanki.  Nanki had no child.  The complainant furnished form along with documents to the opponent and claimed the fixed deposit amount but the opponent refused to pay the amount to the complainant.  The complainant was nominated by Nanki for other fixed deposit amount and locker.  As the opponent failed to pay the amount to the complainant, the complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of the amount along with interest.  She has also claimed compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs for mental harassment and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.

2)                The opponent/Bank appeared and filed written statement.  The fixed deposit is admitted.  The complainant is not the consumer.  She is not the nominee for fixed deposit amount.  The Zonal Officer of this opponent already rejected the claim.  The letter dated 27^th August, 2002 was already issued to the complainant.  The complainant has not clarified about the legal heirs of the husband of Nanki.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed. 

3)                The opponent has not filed its written notes of argument and remained absent on the day of final argument.  After hearing the argument of the learned advocate for the complainant and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- Fixed deposit by Late Nanki is not disputed.  Admittedly, the complainant is not the nominee or Class-I heir of deceased Nanki.  Nanki was married. The opponent had already informed the complainant vide letter dated 27^th August, 2002 that as Nanki was married, legal heirs of husband will exclude the father’s legal heirs.  The complainant was informed to bring necessary order from the appropriate court.  In spite of this letter from the opponent, no steps are taken by the complainant. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the complainant that in view of Circular from the Reserve Bank of India dated 14^th March, 2000, the Succession Certificate is not required.   On the other hand, in the written statement, the opponent has pointed out subsequent circular dated 6^th December, 2000 calling for Succession Certificate is cases where there are disputes.  In the instant complaint before us, deceased was married therefore, the opponent asked for legal heirs of husband of the deceased.  The complainant is not a Class-I heir of the deceased.  She is the legal heir of the father of the deceased.  In view of the letter dated 27^th August, 2002, issued by the opponent/Bank, it was necessary for the complainant to approach the appropriate court for suitable order. Instead of it, the complainant has filed this complaint in the year-2014, i.e. after twelve years.   In view of the Circular dated 6^th December, 2000 issued by Reserve Bank of India, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent.  Admittedly, the complainant is not the nominee.  There are other sister and brother left by the deceased. The complaint is filed by the complainant only who is one of the sister.  This Forum can not decide the legal heir of the deceased therefore, this Forum can not give any relief to the complainant.  The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court for suitable order. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint stands dismissed.
2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3. Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 11^th December, 2015