West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/117/2015

Beli Laha,W/O Bhabani Kanta Laha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Paschim Banga Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

SELF

26 Oct 2016

ORDER

The case of the complainant Beli Laha, in brief, is that one Sristidhar Rooj was her father who had died on 01.06.2005 living behind the complainant Beli Laha as daughter, O.P No.2 Provat Kr. Rooj as son and O.P No.3 Mira Rooj as another daughter and legal heirs.

            It is the further case of the complainant that during his lifetime her father Sristidhar Rooj has deposited in FDR A/c No. 28/2003 Rs. 1,20,000/- and in FDR A/c No. 29/03 Rs. 30,000 to the O.P No.1 Paschim Banga Gramin Bank and Rs. 1,03,236 was also lying in his saving bank A/c No. 370 at the time of his death.

            It is the further case of the complainant is that she visited the O.P No.1 Bank for her legitimate 1/3^rd share amount separately. But O.P No.1 Bank asked her to submit the relevant documents in support of her claim and as per their assurance she submitted some relevant documents in support of her claim, which were already admitted by O.P No.1 Bank. Apart from that it has also been admitted fact that from the letter sent by the petitioner on 29.10.2013 therein claiming her share for the said amount which were matured on 10.03.2013 in the name of the deceased Sristidhar Rooj.

            It is the next case of the complainant that she again sent a letter to the O.P No.1 for her claim which was duly acknowledged by the O.P No.1 Bank on 01.11.2013.

            It is the further case of the complainant in spite of submission of relevant documents the O.P No.1 did not pay any heed and illegally withheld said money and caused physical harassment pain, and financial hardship to the complainant which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service.

Hence this case for directing the O.P No.1 Bank to disburse the amount amongst the petitioner and O.P No.2 and 3 as per their proportionate share separately with compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs for mental pain, agony, harassment, convenience charge, clerical charge etc.

            The O.P No.1 Paschim Banga Gramin Bank has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegations of the complainant contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to bring this case.

            It is the specific case of the O.P No.1 that the complainant is not consumer under the C.P Act.

            It is the specific case of the O.P No.1 that during lifetime Sristidhar Rooj deposited some amounts in S.B. A/c No. 370 without nomination and FDRs (MIS 28/2003 and 29/2003) with nomination in the name of Mongal Rooj (Grandson) and Provat Rooj (son).

            It is also the case of the O.P No.1 the complainant has not filed relevant papers (legal hairs certificate/death certificate/ succession certification/claiming any amount) before the O.P No.1 Bank according to Bank norms till today.

            It is the further case of the O.P No.1 is that in respect of FDRs 28/2003 and 29/2003 only Mongal Rooj (grandson) and Provat Rooj (son) being nominees are entitled to get matured value as per Sec. 45ZA Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Regarding other account the complainant never visited their office and submitted relevant papers before them. So, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.1 and the case is liable to be dismissed.

            The O.P No.2 Pravat Kr. Rooj and O.P No.3 Mira Rooj have also contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the compliant contending, inter alia, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case. The complaint case is not maintainable and she is not consumer under the O.P No.1.

            It is the specific case of the O.P No. 2 and 3 during his lifetime Sristidhar Rooj deposited some amounts in S.B A/c No. 370 without nomination and in FDRs (MIS) 28/2003 and 29/2003 with nominations in the name of Mongal Rooj (grandson) and Provat Rooj (son).

The O.P No.2 and 3 in their written version admitted that the complainant is their own sister and also one of the legal heir of the Sristidhar Rooj.

            It is the further case of the O.P No.2 and 3 that it is very curious enough that no claim has made before O.P No.1 jointly in connection with this case.

So, no question of deficiency in service neither by the O.P No.1 Bank nor by O.P No.2 and 3. Ultimately they prayed for dismissal of the case without huge cost u/s 26 of the C.P Act.

Considering the complaint and other materials on record with think following points are to be decided in this case.

 

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Beli Laha has filed examination in chief (without affidavit) and being her power attorney holder her husband Bhabani Kanta Laha has cross examined on her behalf.

Bhabani Kanta Laha has again filed examination in chief on affidavit on behalf of his wife Beli Laha as power of attorney holder.

The O.P No.1 Paschim Banga Gramin Bank has examined one Nitish Kr. Debnath, Manager, Paschim Banga Gramin Bank, Gadadharpur has OPW No.1. The O.P No.2 Provat Kr. Rooj has been examined himself as O.P.W 2 on behalf of O.P No. 2 and 3.

Both of them are cross examined.

Both parties have filed certain documents. Argument of the Ld. Advocate/Agent of both parties has been heard.

Point No.1:- Evidently father of the complainant Beli Laha i.e. Sristidhar Rooj deposited some money in A/c No. FRDA No. 28/03 and 29/03 and S.B A/c No. 370.

So, being daughter and legal heir of the depositor Sristidhar Rooj, the complainant Beli Laha is on the same footing of Sristidhar Rooj.

So, the complainant is a consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.

Point No.2:- Total valuation of the case is Rs. 3,00,000/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-.

            All the O.Ps have office and residence within  jurisdiction of the Forum.

            So, this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4:- Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

Admittedly Sristidhar Rooj was father of complainant Beli Laha and had died on 01.06.2005 living behind the complainant Beli Laha as daughter, O.P No.2 Provat Kr. Rooj as son and O.P No.3 Mira Rooj as another daughter and legal heirs.

It is also admitted fact that during his lifetime Sristidhar Rooj had deposited in FDR A/c No. 28/2003 Rs. 1,20,000/- and in FDR A/c No. 29/03 Rs. 30,000/- to the O.P No.1 Paschim Banga Gramin Bank and Rs. 1,03,236/- was also lying in his saving bank A/c No. 370 at the time of his death.

 

We find that by sending reply dated 11.02.2015 the O.P No.1 Bank regarding information relating to RTI Act 2005 informed the complainant that her father had died living FRD A/c No. 28/03 and 29/03 and A.B A/c No. 370 without any nominee.

But in their W.V O.P No.1 admitted that on 11.02.2015 O.P No.1 Bank supplied inforjation relating to RTI Act 2005 to the complainant that “there is no nominee in the above accounts / fixed deposit amount” without verifying the hardcopy kept with the Bank. Which is nothing but simple a mechanical mistake.

However, copies of form No. D.A.1 U/s 45ZA Banking Regulation Act 1949 show that deceased Sristidhar Rooj appointed Mongal Rooj his grandson as nominee in respect of FDR No 28/03 and also appointed a Provat Rooj his son as nominee in respect of FDR No. 29/03.

We find that Sec. 45ZA(1) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 runs thus – where a deposit is held by a banking company to the credit of one or more persons the depositors or, as the case may be, all the depositors together may nominated in the prescribed manner, one person to whom in the event of death of the sole depositor or death of all depositors, the amount of deposit may be returned by the banking company.

Sub Sec. 2 of the said sec. runs thus – notwithstanding anything containing any other law for the time being enforced or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, in respect of such deposit, where a nomination made in prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to receive the amount of the deposit from the banking company, the nominee shall, the death of sole depositor or, as the case may be, on the death of all the depositors, became 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.

Evidently during his lifetime Sristidhar Rooj did not cancel or vary said nominations.

So, it is clear that according to Sec. 45ZA Banking Regulation Act, 1949 only nominees of FRD No. 28/03 and 29/03 i.e. Mongal Kr. Rooj and Provat Kr. Rooj are entitled to get deposited money left by deceased Sristidhar Rooj and O.P Bank can discharge their liability by paying the said amount to the said nominees and other legal heirs complainant, Beli Laha cannot claim the said amount to the O.P No.1 Bank.

However, disbursement of said amount is matter amongst the complainant and O.P No2 and 3.

Accordingly, the O.P No.1 Bank is not liable to pay the mature value of FDR No. 28/03 and 29/03 and there was no deficiency on the part of the O.P Bank in this regard.

Let us considered about another account i.e. S.B A/c No. 370 of deceased Sristidhar Rooj.

 

Evidently no nominee was appointed by deceased Sristidhar Rooj in respect of said account and being one of the legal heir of deceased Sristidhar Rooj the complainant is entitled to get 1/3 share of the same.

During hearing of the argument Agent of the complainant drew our attention to point No. 2.3 of RBI notification No. 490/2004-05 dated 09.06.2015 which runs thus – in case where deceased depositor had not made any nomination or for the accounts of other then those tilled as either or survivor banks are advised to adopt a simplified procedure for repayment of legal heir(s) of the depositor(s) keeping in view the imperative need to avoid inconvenience and undue hardship to the common person. In this context bank may keeping in view their risk management systems fix a minimum thrushold limit, for the balance in the account of the deceased depositors upto which claim in respect of deceased depositors would be settled without insisting on production of any documents other than a letter of indemnity.

Evidently, the complainant has not filed any letter of indemnity before the O.P Bank.

It is the specific case of the O.P Bank that the complainant never submitted relevant papers like legal heir certificate/death certificate/succession certification/claiming any account before them.

It is the specific case of the O.P No.1 that the complainant is to submit deceased claim application before the Bank.

The O.P No.1 Bank has filed copy of standard form of deceased claim application before this Forum.

P.W. 1 Bele Laha in her cross examination clearly admitted that “we have filed claim jointly in the form of deceased claim”.

But no scrap of paper is forthcoming before this Forum in this regard.

Rather we find that the complainant based her case on reply under RTI Act supplied by O.P No.1 Bank.

We find that it is the case of the complainant that she has submitted all relevant documents before the O.P No.1Bank.

But the O.P No.1 Bank has denied said fact and claim that the complainant has not submitted original FDR, Pass Book, Death Certificate, affidavit, indemnity bond and claim form etc. before them.

As the complainant has field the present case and claim that she has submitted such documents, alike civil case onus is upon her to prove that she submitted those documents.

But there is nothing to show that actually she has submitted such documents.

We find that admittedly being legal heir of the deceased Sristidhar Rooj the complainant has 1/3^rd shares in money left by deceased Sristidhar Rooj but this Forum is not a regular civil court and we are

 

confined regarding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Considering overall matter into consideration we find that there was no illegal act or deficnency in service on the part of the O.P No.1 as well as O.P No.2 and 3 and the case is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, both these points are decided against the complainant.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 117/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.

 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.