Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 26-10-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Birbhum in C.C. No. 117/2015, whereof the complaint has been dismissed.

Complainant’s case, in brief, is that, she is one of the legal heirs of Sristidhar Rooj, since deceased.  Following the death of her father, she asked the OP No. 1 to pay 1/3 share of the amount kept with the said bank by her father, but the OP No. 1, despite receipt of relevant documents for this purpose, did not relent.  Hence, the complaint.

Counter case of the OP No. 1 is that during his lifetime, Sristidhar Rooj kept some money in SB-370 without any nomination and in FDRs (MIS) 28/2003 and 29/2003 with nominations in favour of one Sri Mangal Rooj (grandson) and Sri Probhat Rooj (Son) vide nos. 16/03 and 17/03 dated 10-03-2003, respectively.  Further case of the OP No. 1 is that, the Complainant did not file relevant papers, e.g., legal heir/succession certificate, death certificate before the Bank.  Accordingly, this OP was not in a position to accede to the request of the Complainant.

It is submitted by the OP Nos. 2&3 that the instant complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.  They further claimed that the instant complaint has no foundation at all and accordingly, they prayed for summary dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

Be it mentioned here that due notice of this Appeal was served upon all the Respondents, but they did not turn up to defend their respective cases.  Accordingly, only the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant was heard in the matter.

It appears from the copy of death certificate on record that Sristidhar Rooj, father of the Appellant died on 01-06-2005.  Documents on record reveal that at the time of his death, following deposits stood in his name at the Respondent No. 1 Bank: (1) FDR No. 28/2003 - Rs. 1,20,000/- (2) FDR No. 29/2003 - Rs. 30,000/- (3) SB Account No. 370 - Rs. 1,03,236/-. 

According to the Appellant, her father, since deceased, did not make any nomination in respect of any of the aforesaid accounts. In order to fortify such averment, the Appellant filed an RTI reply of the Respondent No. 1 Bank dated 11-02-2015.  On the other hand, it transpires from the impugned order that copies of Form No. D.A. 1 u/s 45ZA Banking Regulations Act, 1949 showed that deceased Sristidhar Rooj made Mangal Rooj (grandson) and Provat Rooj (son) nominees of FDR Nos. 28/2003 and 29/2003, respectively. 

Whatever be the truth, since copies of DA1 is not placed before us, we are unable to make any comment in this respect. 

Be that as it may, the Ld. District Forum quoting Sec. 45ZA (2) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 held that nominees in respect of aforementioned FDRs are/were entitled to receive the money and Respondent No. 1 can/could discharge its liability by paying the said amount to the said nominees in respect of FDR Nos. 28/03 and 29/03.  However, it seems, somehow the Ld. District Forum did not evaluate the impact of sub-sec. (4) of the Sec. 45ZA of the 1949 Act, which runs as under:

“(4) Payment by a banking company in accordance with the provisions of this section shall constitute a full discharge to the banking company of its liability in respect of the deposit: PROVIDED that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect the right or claim which any person may have against the person to whom any payment is made under this section”.

Our understanding of this sub-section is that, in case a legal heir produces requisite documents as mentioned in Sec. 45ZB before the bank concerned, he/she would be eligible to get his/her share of the money kept in the concerned deposits, notwithstanding nomination stands in the name of some other person. 

The Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in Arnab Kumar Sarkar vs Smt. Reba Mukherjee & Ors., reported in AIR 2007 Cal 79 elaborately dealt with the impact of Sec. 45ZA Banking Regulations Act, 1949.  The following are excerpts from the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Court.

“42. Apart from the avowed purpose of the said Act of 1949. Section 45ZA appearing in Part-III-B, which was incorporated by an amending Act of 1984, is restricted in its operation. Such provision does not, as the Act in which it appears cannot, direct the fate of the assets of a deceased constituent or depositor. It only limits the obligation and liability of the bank.

43. Sub-section (1) of Section 45ZA defines a nominee. The nominee is such person to whom the amount of deposit may be returned by the banking company. Sub-section (2) confers the exclusive right on the nominee to receive the amount of deposit. The provisions are concerned with the return and the receipt of the deposit. As to what happens to the monies upon the return and receipt being completed, is not governed by these provisions as they are beyond the pale of the Act.

44. The bank may be liable if the deposit is not returned to the nominee. It is the bank's obligation to ensure that, the person claiming to be the nominee is in fact, the nominee. Upon this return and receipt, the bank is discharged. Sub-section (4) confirms such discharge.

45. But Sub-section (4) of Section 45ZA carries a proviso which, in the context, resolves all confusion, if there was any to start with.

46. The "right of claim" referred to in the proviso, necessarily has to be in relation to the money received by a nominee in respect of a bank deposit. The plaintiff in this case could not have sued the bank or sought payment from the bank directly. Section 45ZA would not permit the bank to hand over the payment to persons other than the nominee, unless the nominee so required or unless the claimant produced the requisite document recognized in the proviso to Section 45ZB.

47. The entire purpose of Section 45ZA is to insulate the bank against any claim arising in relation to the deposit. It does not clothe either the recipient with the exclusive right to the deposit or make the recipient immune to any claim by any other”.

It is needless to say that nomination made in favour of a particular person does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest on the amount payable in respect of a deposit after the death of the original depositor.  The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount on payment of which the Bank gets a valid discharge of its liability in respect of the deposit(s), but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the original depositor in accordance with the Law of Succession. In other words, nominee does not get any right or title by virtue of nomination alone. A nomination in respect of a bank deposit cannot be elevated to the status of a testamentary disposition merely by reason of the death of the depositor prior to the receipt of the proceeds from the deposits. As already noted hereinabove, it would be incumbent upon the Appellant to furnish requisite document so mentioned in Sec. 45ZB of the 1949 Act to get her share of the deposited sum kept in the Respondent No. 1 Bank.  Mere submission of death certificate would not serve this purpose. That requirement being not fulfilled, the Ld. District Forum rightly absolved the Respondent No. 1 of any responsibility towards the Appellant.

The course correction for the Appellant, to our mind, would be to approach the appropriate Court of Law for issuance of necessary Succession Certificate in favour of the Appellant and only upon production of the same before the Respondent No. 1, the Appellant can expect settlement of her legitimate claims in respect of the deposits kept in the Respondent No. 1 bank.

Since the Respondent No. 1 committed no deficiency in service so far, we find no merit in the present Appeal and accordingly,  dismiss the same.

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed ex parte against the Respondents without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.