Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/9/2022

N. Subramanian - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager Repco Bank - Opp.Party(s)

I. Saddam Hussain

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 12.04.2021

Date of Reservation      : 02.08.2022

Date of Order               : 30.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                            : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.9 /2022

TUESDAY, THE 30^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

N.Subramanian, (M/74),

S/o. M.Narayanaswamy,

23, First Street,

South Gopalapuram,

Chennai - 600086.                                                                                                                                                         ... Complainant                       

 

..Vs..

Repco Bank,

Rep. by its Chief Manager,

First Floor,

No.12/14, 4th Main Road,

Nanganallur,

Chennai - 600061.                                                                                                                                                       ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant       :  M/s.P.A.Arvinth Viveks for

                                                 M/s. I. Saddam Hussain

Counsel for the Opposite Party    : M/s. S.Chandrasekharan

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to return the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the two fixed deposits amount bearing A/c. Nos.1343 and 1234 along with the interest @ 30% p.a from April 2019 till the date of actual return by the Opposite Party and direct the Opposite Party topay Rs.5,00,555/- towards undue hardship, mental agony and stress caused to the Complainant.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

 The Opposite Party Repartriates Cooperative Finance and Development Bank Ltd., (REPCO BANK)  was registered on 19.11.1969 as a Cooperative Society under the relevant provisions of Madras Cooperative Sociieties Act, 1961 with jurisdiction over the State of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Union Territory of Puducherry to promote the rehabilitation activities for repatriates from neighbouring countries mainly from Sri Lanka and Burma. Though originally registered under the Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, the Bank is deemed to be registered under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The complainant knows one Mr.R.B.Kulkarni for more than 45 years who was also an employee in his company. He runs a charitable trust for old age persons in which Mr.R.B.Kulkarni was employed as a Care-taker, to take care of the need of the inmates. Though he was a Care-Taker, he was almost treated as one of the inmates of the above trust. Mr.R.B.Kulkarni's wife and son deserted him about 31 years back. Thereafter, he took care of him and provided him with food and shelter. On 20.04.2019, at the age of 83 years Mr. Kulkarni passed away in the trust and his last rites were performed by him. Mr.Kulkarni had fixed deposits with the Opposite Party Bank bearing Customer ID.No.B089100000002656. the particulars of the fixed deposits are given below:-

S.No.	Receipt No.	Account No.	Maturity Amount	Maturity Date
1.	604221	1234	Rs.1,00,000	28.12.2018
2.	604804	1343	Rs.4,00,000	18.04.2019
3.	652747	1772	Rs.4,00,000	06.12.2012
4.	652748	1773	Rs.4,00,000	06.12.2019

 The above said fixed deposits, late Mr.R.B.Kulkarni appointed him as a nominee and handed over all the receipts to him. Whereas, the family members of late Mr.R.B. Kulkarni deserted him long back, he had no legal heirs and the question of succession does not arise in this case. The same can be ascertained from an unregistered will dated 15.08.2013 executed by the late Mr. R.B. Kulkarni in favour of the complainant, On 04.07 2019,  he sent a letter to the opposite party, requesting them to inform the procedure to enable him to get the above said fixed deposits amount. To his utter shock of the complainant, the opposite party in his reply dated 24.12.2019 in para 2, stated that their bank record shows that Mr.Subramani is standing as a nominee for A/c Nos. 1343 and 1234 and Mr.N.Subramanian is standing as a nominee for remaining two fixed deposits bearing A/c.Nos.1772 and 1773. Mr.Subramani and Mr.N.Subramanian are two different persons, not one and the same, the opposite party rejected his claim towards the amount of the fixed deposit and stated that he is only entitled to receive the amount for A/c.Nos.1772 and 1773 and for the remaining two fixed deposits amount bearing A/c Nos. 1343 and 1234 only Mr.Subramani can claim the deposit proceeds and nothim. In respect of two fixed deposits bearing A/c.Nos. 1772 and 1773, standing Mr.N.Subramanian i.e.. he as a nominee, the opposite party had returned the payment of Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant. But, till now the amount has not been returned in respect of other two fixed deposits. The letters dated 28.12.2019 and 22.01.2020 to the opposite party to make them understand about the circumstance that late Mr.R.B.Kulkarni had appointed only the complainant as a nominee but not any other person. If it is two different persons, late Mr.R.B.Kulkarni would not have entrusted all the four FD receipts to the complainant. In support of his genuine and bonafide claim, he relies upon the unregistered will dated 15.08.2013 executed by the late Mr.R.B.Kulkarni in his favour, late Mr.R.B. Kulkarni has mentioned his name as Subramanian S/o. Narayanaswamy, to whom he has entrusted all the documents like share, bank deposit, receipts, etc. He had also entrusted the complainant to utilize the funds for the welfare activities. Also, the bank receipts of opposite party bears the same address of Sri Kamakshi Anandashram Trust, where late Mr.R.B.Kulkarni lived under his care. Since late Mr.R.B.Kulkarni did not know English, the form was filled by bank officials. Moreover, a customer of the bank has no access to verify the actions of the bank officials when they enter the details in their records. Furthermore, in the FD receipt it is only mentioned as "Nomination Registered". So the depositor i.e., late Mr.R.B. Kulkarni may not be aware of the details entered as Mr.Subramani or Mr.N.Subramanian. Because of the error made by the bank officials, the complainant's genuine and bonafide claim cannot be rejected without any fault on his part. He again elucidated his grievances to the Chairman of Repco Bank vide letter dated 05.09.2020. Till now, no steps have been taken by the opposite party or by the higher officials in respect of returning the deposit amount. Also, the opposite party has not guided the complainant what kind of proof they need to enable the complainant to receive the deposit proceeds. Yet again, the complainant's grief fell into deaf ears. According to the section 45ZA(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it is crystal clear that the nominee is a person authorized to receive the amount belonging to the original depositor, after the death of the holder. For convenience section 452A(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is reproduced below:

"Sec. 452A(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, in respect of such deposit, where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to receive the amount of deposit from the banking company, the nominee shall, on the death of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, on the death of all the depositors, become entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, of the depositors, in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner."

He issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 09.01.2021. The opposite party through their counsel sent a reply to the legal notice on 10.02.2021, in which the bank had admitted the most of the factual statements made in the notice. It further stated that the remaining two fixed deposits to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- was not settled by the bank due to identity of nominee. But once again the opposite party did not choose to disclose the procedure as to how the complainant would get the fixed deposits amount which shows the deficient of service and arrogant attitude of the bank. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The above complaint is unsustainable in law, and on facts. The averments No documents produced to prove the statements made in para 5 and 6 and only civil court to entertain the averments in paragraphs 5 and 6 and this Commission is no jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint. The said Mr.R.B.Kulkarni had 4 fixed deposits and 2 deposits, Mr.N.Subramanian standing as Nominee. The said Mr.R.B.Kulkarni was died intestate, the complainant had produced KYC before the in Opposite Party and they had returned the payment to the complainant. This said deceased Mr.R.B.Kulkarni died intestate leaving behind his wife and only on Mr. Mohan as his legal heirs to succeed the estate of Mr.R.B.Kulkarni and the complainant is falsely stated that no legal heirs of deceased Mr.R.B.Kulkarni. The un-registered WILL dated 15.08.2013 executed by the said Mr.R.B.Kulkarni in favour of the complaint that the complainant ailed to move the appropriate Court to obtain the order in PROBATE/LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION/SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE. The said WILL in Tamil Version and the said Mr.R.B. Kulkarni not aware of the Tamil and English and he know only Kanada and no signature in the said WILL. On perusal of the WILL fixed deposit of REPCO not mentioned in the said WILL and the said WILL is forged one obtained by the complainant from the deceased R.B.Kulkarni. In their letter dated 24.12.2019 in paragraphs 2 and 3 stated that "It is ascertained further that you have made a claim for the Ooruni A/c. No.1810 and 1343 which are bearing nomination of Mr.Subramani, stating that Mr.Subramani and N.Subramanian denote the same person. At the time of application of nomination by the deceased depositor, he had not submitted any KYC documents establishing the identity and address of the nominees. On perusal of records submitted by you, we request to submit the necessary documents to establish viz., Mr.Subramani & Mr.N.Subramanian denote the same person". Further in the said letter it is stated that "As per the banking norms in vogue, our bank is liable to refund/settle the deposit proceeds of the deceased depositors to the nominee appointed by the depositor. The law is well settled that nominee is a mere custodian of fixed deposits and he has no right over it". The complainant to obtain order from the CIVIL COURT. The complainant letters dated 28.12.2019 and 22.01.2020, the opposite party already given first and final reply dated 24.12.2019, this Honourable Commission to read letter dated 24.12.2019 as part and parcel of their version. The WILL dated 15.08.2013 was not probated/Letters of Administration/Succession certificate before the appropriate courts to receive the deposit proceeds. It is false to state that form of the deposit was filled by the bank officials and as per Banking Law, no instructions given to their official for filling the application and the deceased Mr.R.B.Kulkarni signed in all these applications form in English. The complainant by letters dated 20.12.2019, 22.01.2020 and 05.09.2020 and the false statement of the complainant in the legal notice of his Advocate dated 09.01.2021 and the present complaint.  Section 45ZA(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, that "Mr.N.Subramanian” has been standing as nominee 2 deposits for Ooruni A/c.Nos.1773 and 1772, the KYC records produced by the complainant clearly established that name as "N.Subramanian" and the complainant entitled to receive the deposit proceeds of Ooruni A/C.No.1773 and 1772. Further, the Ooruni A/c.No.1810 and 1343 where Mr.Subramani has been standing as a nominee, only Mr.Subramani is entitled to receive the deposit proceeds and not otherwise.  Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, Documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-13  were marked.  The Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Party, Documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-2  were marked.   

5.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

        It is an undisputed fact that deceased Mr.R.B. Kulkarni had 4 fixed deposits bearing Nos.1772, 1773,1343 and 1234 with the Opposite Party Bank.

        It is also not in dispute that of the above said fixed deposit A/c. Nos 1772 and 1773 for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs each deposited by the said R.B Kulkarni, were paid to the Complainant, based on the nomination made in the name of the Complainant, i.e., N.  Subramanian, by the said deceased R.B. Kulkarni.

        The dispute arose when the Opposite Party had refused to pay the fixed deposit of deceased R.B.Kulkarni bearing Account Nos.1234 and 1343 for a sum of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.4 lakhs, respectively, to the Complainant, whose name was metioned as “Subramani” instead of “N.Subramanian”.

        The question to be decided that whether the refusal of paying the fixed deposit to the Complainant made by the Opposite Party is legally sustainable.

        From the perusal of Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-3 being the fixed deposit receipt No.604221 dated 28.12.2017 for Rs.1 lakh bearing A/c No.1234 and Fixed deposit No.604804 dated 18.04.2018 for Rs.4 lakhs bearing A/c. No.1343, respectively, wherein nomination was found to be registered and Ex.B-1 and B-2, being the deposit forms submitted by R.B. Kulkarni vide A/c No.1234 for 1 lakh and A/C.No.1343 for 4 lakhs, the name of the Nominee was found as “Subramani”, As per Ex.A-10, Death Certificate of R.B.Kulkarni, the said R.B.Kulkarni died on 20.04.2019. Since the above said fixed deposits of Deceased R.B.Kulkarni, were not paid to the Complainant, the Complainant had sought for procedure to claim for the said deposits and to send the forms to submit his claim, by his letter dated 04.07.2019, marked as Ex.A-7, for which by Ex-A-8, letter dated 24.12.2019 sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant, wherein it was mentioned that there are liable to refund/settle the deposit of deceased deposit or to the nominee appointed by the deposits, but the KYC documents submitted by the Complainant does not match with the name of the nominee mentioned in the nomination form submitted by the deceased depositor, namely R.B.Kulkari, they had requested to submit necessary document to establish, viz Mr.Subramani and Mr.N.Subramanian denote the same person. The Complainant on 28.12.2019 sent a letter to the Opposite Party through RPAD, wherein he had referred a WILL executed by the deceased R.B.Kulkarni, in which the name of the Complainant was mentioned as Subramaniam son of Narayanasamy Iyer and by Ex.A-10 being the letter dated 22.01.2020 sent to the Opposite Party through RPAD, wherein had explained the happenings in detail and sought for production of necessary papers/forms filled up by the deceased R.B.Kulkarni and also to produce the proof of identity of the nominee, failing reply within 15 days, would constain to take up the matter before appropriate legal forum, no proof of postal receipt (or) proof of delivery in respect of Exs.A-9 and Ex.A-10, been filed by the Complainant before this Commission. Ex.A-12 is the legal notice dated 09.01.2021 sent to the Opposite Party, for returning the fixed deposit amount of Rs.5 lakhs lying in A/c Nos.1343 and 1234, for which a reply dated 10.02.2021 sent by the Opposite Party though their Advocate, wherein it is clearly stated that since the name of the nominee mentioned as “Subramani”, the said amounts could not be settled as the identification of name of the nominee varies/ differs.

        The contention of the Complainant that the deposit forms filled and marked as Exs.B-1 and Ex.B-2, was filled by the bank officials who had wrongly entered the name of the Complainant in the nominee column and had contended referring the unregistered WILL dated 15.08.2013, marked as Ex.A-1 and contended that the Complainant is entitled to receive the said fixed deposits of deceased R.B.Kulkarni.  The contention of the Opposite Party in this regard is that as per Banking norms, the bank officials are not allowed to fill up the forms, and further the unregistered WILL (Ex.A-1) does not speak about the future deposits as investments to be made by the said R.B.Kulkarni, to be received by the Complainant when it has been specifically mentioned about the amounts lying in other banks to be received by the Complainant.  The Judgement relied upon by the Complainant in respect of probating the WILL, passed in FA.No.A/12/502 by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 30.07.2012 in SBT. Thangassery Branch Vs. Vasantha kumari, will not apply to the instant case, as the Opposite Party Bank had not directed for probate of the WILL of the deceased R.B.Kulkarni and unlike the order passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in F.A.Nos.1426, 2452 and 2460 of 2017, will not apply to the instant case. The other Judgement of Hon’ble High Court, Madras, passed in W.P.No.26992 of 2007 in S.Sampath Vs- The Regional Manager, State Bank of India & Another, on 23.08.2018, will also not apply to the instant case, wherein in the said Judgement though the petitioner was nominated in fixed deposit and not in Savings Bank account, directed the bank to disburse the amounts lying in Savings Bank account, with an observation that, if any dispute prevails in respect of the claim regarding the deposit amount, to get an undertaking from such nominee at the time of disbursement of matured amount. In the instant case, the name of the nominee itself is in dispute and hence the above judgement relied by the Complainant will not apply.

        On foregoing discussions and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the contentions made by the Complainant are not legally sustainable and we hold that  the refusal to pay the fixed deposits mentioned  herein to the Complainant, whose name differs in the nomination particulars, by the Opposite Party is legally sustainable. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party had not committed any deficiency of service. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2 and 3:-

        As discussed and decided point no.1, the Complainant is not entitled for reliefs claimed in the Complaint and also for any other relief/s. Accordingly point Nos 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

 

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 30^th of August 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	15.08.2013	Unregistered Will executed by the late Mr. R.B.Kulkarni in favour of the complainant N.Subramanian
Ex.A2	29.12.2017	Ooruni Deposit Receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- in Account No.1234 deposited in the opposite party bank by the late Mr.R.B.Kulkarni
Ex.A3	19.04.2018	Ouruni Deposit Receipt for Rs.4,00,000 in  Account No.1343 deposited in the opposite party bank by the late Mr.R.B.Kulkarni
Ex.A4	07.12.2018	Ooruni Deposit Receipt for Rs.4,00,000 in Account No.1772 deposited in the opposite party bank by the late Mr.R.B.Kulkarni
Ex.A5	07.12.2018	Ooruni Deposit Receipt for Rs.4,00,000 in Account No.1773 deposited in the opposite party bank by the late Mr.R.B.Kulkarni
Ex.A6	17.06.2019	Death Certificate of late Mr.R.B.Kulkarni issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation
Ex.A7	04.07.2019	Claim Letter sent by the complainant to the Opposite party
Ex.A8	24.12.2019	Reply sent by the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A9	28.12.2019	Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A10	22.01.2020	Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite Party
Ex.A11	05.09.2020	Letter sent by the complainant to the Chairman of REPCO Bank
Ex.A12	09.01.2021	legal notice sent by the complainant's counsel to the Opposite Party
Ex.A13	10.02.2021	Reply by the opposite party's counsel to the legal notice sent by the complainant's counsel

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

 

Ex.B1	29.12.2017	Deposit form in the name of R.B. Kulkarni
Ex.B2	19.04.2018	Deposit form in the name of R.B.Kulkarni

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT