BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.110 of 2021
Date of Instt. 09.03.2021
Date of Decision: 09.02.2023
Manjit Kaur aged about 52 years W/o Malwinder Singh D/o Smt. Nirmal Kaur R/o H. No.C-494, Sansarpur, Tehsil and Distt. Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
The Manager/Branch Head of Punjab National Bank, Branch office Furniture Bazar, Kartarpur, Distt. Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. S. S. Khullar, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Sat Paul Virdi, Adv. Counsel for OP.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant’s mother Nirmal Kaur holding account no.0260000109279499 in which complainant Manjit Kaur was duly nominated by her mother Nirmal Kaur during her life time. The mother of complainant Smt. Nirmal Kaur was expired on 20/07/2020. The complainant being legal heir and duly registered nominee in account and being the beneficiary under the scheme is, thus consumer of the opposite party and very well falls within the definition of "consumer" as per provisions of the Act. During the subsisting period mother of complainant fell ill and was admitted to Innocent Hearts Multispeciality Hospital, Jalandhar for treatment, but she could not recover from illness inspite of continued and best medical treatment provided by complainant. The complainant being the beneficiary on account of nomination, duly registered in account, submitted application as per prescribed Performa of the OP on the 11th of January 2021 and thereafter also served a legal notice dated 17/02/2021 through registered post. Nirmal Kaur the mother of complainant was duly executed her registered Will dated 03/08/2016 during her life time in favour of complainant. The complainant has been continuously approaching the opposite party personally, but the opposite party has not considered the request of the complainant, even though complainant was duly registered nominee in account and being the legal beneficiary. The OP not releases the amount of account no. mentioned above to complainant, nor they ever issued any written letter mentioning any reason for non releasing the amount in question to the complainant. Till date the OP failure to release amount lying with them in favour of complainant is a contravention of statutory provisions of nomination Act is amounts to deficiency in service on part of OP. The complainant has suffered huge financial loss, great mental tension, agony and frustration due to nonpayment of genuine claim of the complainant by OP and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,05,955/- with interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid amount from 01.01.2021 till its realization, to the complainant being nominee and being legal beneficiary. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has conceal the true and material facts from this Commission. So the complaint should be dismissed. It is further averred that the deceased Nirmal Kaur having one Bank Account and one Locker in the bank of the answering OP. Nirmal Kaur before her death had declared nominee to the complainant Majit Kaur but for the Locker no nominee has been declared by the deceased Nirmal Kaur. It is further averred that the objection has been made by the nephew namely Harmanpreet Singh son of Late Dilbagh Singh R/o H.no.21A, Jwala Nagar, Ward No.39, Maqsudan Jalandhar, that he is also the legal heir of deceased Nirmal Kaur and having right on her assets moreover Harman Preet Singh has filed a civil suit and same was withdraw after made a statement before the court that the matter has been compromised and he does not want to proceed with the present case on dated 22.09.2020 from the court of Sh. Deepal Singh Chhina Civil Judge, Jalandhar. After that a civil case Title "Harmanpreet Singh Vs. Canara Bank and other has again filed which is pending in the Court of Sh. Sudhir Kumar Civil Judge, Jalandhar fixed for 23.04.2021. This fact has been concealed by the complaint before this Commission. The answering party i.e. Punjab National Bank (PNB) is ready to give the amount to the complainant if this Commission give the direction to the answering party or if the complainant is ready to give indemnity/ surety bond to the bank that she will return the amount to the bank if the civil court shall please to order against her. On merits, the factum with regard to the account no.0260000109279499, which was in the name of Smt. Nirmal Kaur, the mother of the complainant is admitted. It is also admitted that the complainant was registered nominee of the deceased Nirmal Kaur, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. It is admitted and proved that the account no.0260000109279499 was in the name of Smt. Nirmal Kaur, the mother of the complainant. This is proved from Ex.C-1. This is also proved and admitted by the OP that the complainant was registered nominee of the deceased Nirmal Kaur. It is also proved that Smt. Nirmal Kaur died on 20.07.2020. The death certificate has been proved by the complainant as Ex.C-2. The complainant has alleged that her deceased mother appointed her as a nominee as well as executed a Will in her favour bequeathing her estate in her name, who is her daughter. The Will has been proved as Ex.C-5. In this Will, it has specifically been mentioned that the son of the deceased Nirmal Kaur namely Dilbag Singh pre deceased her. As per this Will, the immovable as well as movable property was bequeathed in the name of Manjit Kaur.
7. As per the contention of the OP, the nephew of the complainant namely Harmanpreet Singh s/o Dilbag Singh raised objection before the bank that he is also the legal heir of the deceased Nirmal Kaur and having right on her assets. He has filed the civil suit also. The proceedings before the Civil Court regarding the suit filed by Harmanpreet Singh has been proved on record by the complainant as well as the OP. The OP has proved on record the copy of the order dated 22.09.2020 Ex.OP1/3, which shows that Harmanpreet Singh filed a suit against Canara Bank and the suit was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of compromise between Harmanpreet Singh and the present complainant Manjit Kaur. Statement of Harmanpreet Singh has been proved by the OP as Ex.OP1/4 and the copy of compromise has also been proved on record Ex.OP1/5. The copy of the plaint of the suit filed by Harmanpreet Singh before the Civil Court has also been proved as Ex.OP-6, which shows that the complainant had filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction directing the banks to release the amount lying in the name of Nirmal Kaur and the account number in present complaint is also involved in that suit and the OP is also party in that suit, but that suit has been withdrawn. The complainant has denied the execution of the compromise deed and has also denied the compromise. Thereafter, again Harmanpreet Singh filed a suit before the Civil Court on 23.12.2020 and the proceedings have been proved by the complainant as Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-11. Perusal of these proceedings show that Harmanpreet Singh has not been granted any interim relief of injunction at the filing of the present suit till 07.07.2021 when the last proceedings of the Court have been conducted and proved. It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, in a case titled as “Communist Party of India (Marxist) Vs. United Bank of India and Ors.” that Section 45-ZA of the Banking Regulation Act provides for Nomination for payment of depositors money and reads as under:-
(1) Where a deposit is held by a banking company to the credit of one or more persons, the depositor or, as the case may be, all the depositors together may nominate in the prescribed manner, one person to whom in the event of the death of the sole depositor or the death of all the depositors, the amount of deposit may be returned by the banking company.
(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.
(3) ***
(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 effect the right or claim which any person may have against the person to whom any payment is made under this section.
As per Rule 2 of the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 1985 that Nomination in respect of deposits.-(1) The nomination to be made by the depositor, or, as the case may be, all the depositors together in respect of a deposit held by a banking company to the credit of one or more individual shall be in Form DA 1.
(2) The said nomination may be made only in respect of a deposit which is held in the individual capacity of the depositor and not in any representative capacity as the holder of an office or otherwise.
(3)***
(4) ***
(5) The cancellation of the said nomination to be made by the depositor or, as the case may be, all the depositors together, shall be in Form DA 2.
(6) A variation of the said nomination to be made by the depositor or, as the case may be, all the depositors together, shall be in Form DA 3.
(7) The said nomination shall be made in favour of only one individual. (8) (a) A nomination, cancellation of nomination or variation of nomination may be made as aforesaid at any time during which the deposit is held by a banking company to the credit of the depositor or depositors, as the case may be.
8. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High court that the nomination is made under Section 45-ZA of the Banking Regulation Act and Rule 2(1) of the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 1985 and in the event of the death of the depositor, the banking company would be under an obligation to return the amount of deposit to such person i.e. the nominee.
9. In the present case, though the documents produced on record by the OP show that civil litigation is pending between Harmanpreet Singh, the grandson of the deceased and the complainant i.e. the daughter of the deceased, but no stay order has been passed by the Civil Court. As per the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, the amount is to be returned to the nominee and that cannot be held in bank just for unlimited period waiting the decision of the Civil Court. The right of the nominee cannot be taken away. The rights of the complainant and Harmanpreet Singh are to be determined by the Civil Court, therefore the right of Harmanpreet Singh/OP and any other claimant can be protected by directing the complainant to furnish indemnity bond in the sum of Rs.12,50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, indemnifying the claim of any other claimant/OP in future, if any, within two months. The OPs are directed to release the amount to the complainant being the legal heir, beneficiary and nominee of the deceased Nirmal Kaur on furnishing her indemnity bond. Further, OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
09.02.2023 Member President
