Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1048/2015

Balbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sangrur Central Co-op.Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Shergill

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                           

                                                Complaint No.  1048

                                                Instituted on:    10.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       11.07.2016

 

1.     Balbir Singh,

2.     Gurdev Singh son of late Kartar Singh.

3.     Sukhwinder Singh @ Bhola Singh son of Late Kartar Singh, all residents of Village Bhadshahpur, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

4.     Gurpinder Kaur @ Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Jalor Singh daughter of Late Kartar Singh, resident of Village Dhola, Tehsil and District Barnala.

                                                        …Complainants

                                Versus

1.     The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Head Office; Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its District Manager/Authorised Signatory.

2.     The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Branch Office: Dhuri, Tehsil District through its Branch Manager/authorised signatory.

3.     Desh Bhagat College, Village Bardwal, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur through its Principal/Authorised signatory.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For OPs No.1 and 2   :       Shri S.S.Sibia, Adv.

For OP No.3             :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Balbir Singh, Gurdev Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Gurpinder Kaur, complainants are the sons and daughter of late Shri Kartar Singh (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that Shri Bahadur Singh son of late  Shri Kartar Singh (referred to as deceased for short) was an employee with the OP number 3 and died during his service on 31.3.2013. It has been further stated that the deceased Bahadur Singh was unmarred at the time of his death and no class I legal heirs are alive and the complainants are the real brothers and sister. It is further stated that after the death of the deceased, the complainants being legal heirs approached the concerned office of the Deputy Commissioner Sangrur for issuing legal heir certificate, who issued the same in favour of the complainants on 18.5.2015. It has been further averred that at the time of his death, he had contributory provident fund account bearing number 181536046000162 with the OP number 2 and an amount of Rs.7,73,684/- was lying deposited therein. It is stated further as such, after the death of the deceased, the complainants approached the Ops number 1 and 2 for payment of the said amount and the OP number 3 even issued letter dated 22.6.2015, but all in vain. It is further stated that nothing happened despite approaching the Ops so many times by the complainants for payment of the due amount lying with the Ops number 1 and 2. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainants have prayed that the Ops be directed to released the amount of Rs.7,73,684/- along with interest till the date of releasing the amount and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Ops number 1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainants have unnecessarily dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation and that the complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits,  it is stated that the complainants though approached the Ops for payment of CPF lying in the account of the deceased, but it is stated that as per the succession certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner Sangrur the complainants are only liable to get the balance of pension amount of the deceased Bahadur Singh. It is stated that the complainants are not entitled to get the service benefits.  As such, it is stated that the complainants are not entitled to get any amount from the Ops. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complaint is premature and that the complainants do not come under the definition of the consumer. On merits, it is admitted that the deceased Bahadur Singh was an employee of OP number 3 and died on 31.3.2013 and as on 31.3.2015, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.7,73,684/- which is lying with the Op number 1 and 2. It is stated further that the OP number 3 wrote a letter dated 22.6.2015 to the OPs number 1 and 2 to release the payment to the legal heirs, as the complainants have obtained the legal heir certificate from the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur.  However, it is stated that the legal heir certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner is only for the pension benefits.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 3 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of death certificate, Ex.C-3 copy of succession certificate, Ex.C-4 copy of letter dated 22.6.2015, Ex.C-5 copy of account statement, Ex.C-6 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9 postal receipts, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-12 affidavits, Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-15 copies of passbook, Ex.C-16 copy of affidavit, Ex.C-17 copy of letter and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 copy of legal heir certificate, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of letter dated 22.6.2015, Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of letter dated 27.7.2015, Ex.OP1&2/4 copy of letter dated 29.7.2015, Ex.OP1&2/5 copy of legal opinion dated 7.8.2015, Ex.Op1&2/6 copy of letter dated 10.8.2015, Ex.OP1&2/7 copy of letter dated 19.8.2015, Ex.OP1&2/8 copy of legal notice,  and Ex.OP1&2/9 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the deceased brother of the complainants was working with the OP number 3 and died during the service on 31.3.2013. It is further an admitted fact that the deceased Bahadur Singh died unmarried. It is further an admitted fact that the deceased Bahadur Singh was having a credit balance of Rs.7,73,684/- with the OP number 2.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased Bahadur Singh.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainants is that when they approached the OP number 1 and 2 for payment of the amount of Rs.7,73,684/- along with interest accrued thereon, but the OPs number 1 and 2 refused to pay the same and asked to produce the succession certificate, whereas the stand of the complainants is that they are the brothers and sister of the deceased Bahadur Singh and no other legal heir is there. To support such a contention, the complainants have produced Ex.C-2 the death certificate of Bahadur Singh and the legal heirs certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner Sangrur dated 18.5.2015, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that all the complainants, namely, Balvir Singh, Gurdev Singh, Gurpinder Kaur and Sukhwinder Singh are the legal heirs.  But, a bare perusal of it shows that this has been issued to get the remainders of pension.  But, we may mention that it is a succession certificate only meaning thereby the complainants can also get the dues lying with the Ops in the name of Shri Bahadur Singh deceased.  This fact is further mentioned in the affidavits of all the complainants produced on record as Ex.C-10, Ex.C-11, Ex.C-12 that they are the only legal heirs.  Further the OP number 3 has clearly stated in the letter dated 22.6.2015, Ex.C-4 issued to the Manager, Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dhuri for making the payment to the complainants as they are the legal heirs of the deceased Bahadur Singh.   Further it is not the case of the OPs that the succession certificate, Ex.Op1&2/1 is not genuine one.

 

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended vehemently that the OPs are only in a position to release the payment subject to the submission of the succession certificate issued by the Civil Court in favour of the complainants, but, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the OPs that without getting the succession certificate from the complainants, the payment cannot be released.  The learned counsel for the complainants has contended that the OPs should have a solution cum justice oriented approach in such cases as in the present case all the complainants/claimants have submitted their affidavits and are further ready to submit indemnity bond, then the OPs number 1 and 2 should have released the payment in favour of the complainants.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the complainants has cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Shanti Devi vs. Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank 2006(3) CLT 695 (NC), wherein it is held that the banks should have solution cum justice oriented approach and further Held that a solution cum justice oriented approach is need of the hour. It requires time, energy and money to obtain a succession certificate. Parties should not be forced to take such a long expensive and tiresome route. If other heirs of the deceased give consent on an affidavit on due identification and have no objection, then the Bank should release the amount in favour of the complainant alongwith other heirs.”  In the present case, since all the four complainants, who are the legal heirs of Shri Bahadur Singh (deceased) have submitted affidavits and are ready to even submit indemnity bond to the OPs for getting released the amount from the Ops number 1 and 2, we feel that the OPs should release the payment to the complainants. 

 

8.             In view of above discussion and circumstances of the 8case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to release the due amount of Rs.7,73,684/- lying in the account of late Shri Bahadur Singh to the complainants in equal share with upto date interest as per rules.  The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and an amount of Rs.5500/- on account  litigation expenses.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 11, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member