Complainant is present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission.

BY - SRI. SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Party No.3 is the Principal Op and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2are thePostal Department with whom the father ofComplainant No.1 and 2has Four Monthly Income Scheme A/c No(s).2103913, 2103963, 2103904 and 2103789 respectively and One Savings A/c No.1170754 out of all Total Five Number of Accounts during his life time.

The father of the Complainants Subodh Chandra Maity died on 27.10.2013 leaving behind his only two sons as legal heirs and successors of propertyi.e. Complainant No.1 and 2against whom the Succession Certificate has been issued by the Court of Ld. District Delegate at Purba Medinipur on 28.07.2020 u/s 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 vide Succession Case No.20 of 2016.

1. Accordingly, when the Complainantslodged the “Death Claim”of their deceased father against the Succession Certificate, the Opsstarted acting lackadaisically without caring the genuine claim of the Complainants.
2. The Complainantsserved Legal Notices by claiming the amount of Rs.8,55,773.30 plus Interest on 25.08.2020 against the said Total Five Accounts but, the Ops did not replied.
3. Thereafter, the Complainant preferred to file the instant case before this Commission.
4. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 25.08.2020 when the Opsdid not bothered to answer the Legal Notice of the Complainants.
5. The Complainants, therefore, prays for directing the Ops jointly and severally :-

1. To pay the “Death Claim” of their deceased father Subodh Chandra Maity amounting to Rs.8,55,773.30 plus Interest till date in favour of the Complainants in accordance with the Succession Certificate issued by the Ld. District Delegate, Purba Medinipur.

2. To pay a Compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00 to the Complainant for deficiency in service, negligence and business loss and illegal activities by the Ops.

3. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.30,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.
4. Any other order/orders as this Commission may deed fit and proper.

6. Notices wereduly served upon all the Ops but Ops preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against it.

7. Under the above circumstances, the Complainant has prayed for ex-parte order against the Op No.1 and 3.

8. Points for determination are:
1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

9. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Petition of the Complainantalong with all connected papers and other documents.

10. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that the Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Ops, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.
11. We have also gone through all the submitted papers and supporting documents of both the parties. On careful analysis of the same it is observed by this Commission are as follows :-

1. In the instant case, the Complainant submitted Copy of two Legal Notices to the Op No.1 and 2 with Postal Receipt, copy of Succession Certificate issued by the Ld. District Delegate at Purba Medinipur, copy of Death Certificate of Subodh Chandra Maity, copy of Certificate from Gram Panchayet for Permanent Inhabitant and Legal Hairs of Late Subodh Chandra Maity, copy of Voter Id Card and Aadhaar Cards of the Complainants, copy of Form for Claim of Balance in the Savings Bank A/c of the Deceased Depositor along with Aadhaar Cards of two Witnesses, Ledger Particulars and copy of a Post Office Savings Bank A/c No.1170754 incomplete Pass Book which is containing only Cover Page and Two Transaction Pages.
2. From the above submitted documents and in absence of all Four Original Pass Books relating to MIS which the Complainant failed to produce on demand and the incomplete copy of Passbook being Savings A/c No. 1170754, this Commission is not in a position to adjudicate the contentions of the complainants.
3. Moreover, in the Complaint, the Complainant has only mentioned the Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Smt. Madhumita Maity as Principal Op who is the wife of Complainant No.2 and presently resides in a separate address than the Complainants. Apart from that nothing is mentioned in relation to her interest in the said accounts of the deceased while making her party in this case.
4. But, during argument it is revealed on query from the Complainants that the Op No.3 was the only Nominee in respect of all Five Accounts of the Deceased Person and therefore, the Op No.1 and 2 categorically denied transferring the Balance Claim of the Deceased to the Complainants in-spite of submission of the Succession Certificate in their name.
5. The nominee of a deceased person is entitled to claim the benefit which devolves upon her as per wish of the depositor. Nominee is a relative of the deceased person, who made the nomination in her name, according to the record of the Bank or Post Office. In the instant case, the Op No.3 is the nominee who is not only custodian or trustee of the assets which were entrusted to her.

6. Therefore, the Complainants have failed to prove its case as against the Ops. The Complainants are not entitled to get any relief in this case.

12. Accordingly, both the points are disposed of.
13. Thus, the complaint case fails.

Hence, it is

        O R D E R E D

That the CC-237 of 2020 be and the same is dismissed exparte against the Ops. No order as to costs is passed.

Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the parties free of costs.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this judgment.