Punjab

Sangrur

CC/71/2017

Baljinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Naveen Shrivastava

18 May 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 71                                                                                           

                                                                  Instituted on:   21.02.2017                                                                                 

                                                                   Decided on:    18.05.2017

 

Baljinder Singh aged about 20 years son of Late Sh. Manjit Singh resident of village Bakhopir, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.         

                                                …. Complainant

                                        Versus

 

The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Branch Bhawanigarh Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                ….Opposite party.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Naveen Srivastava Adv.                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY           :      Shri  G.S.Sibia,  Advocate                         

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

     

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Baljinder Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that deceased Roop Singh was having bank account with OP and he invested an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in the shape of FDR dated 20.11.2015 at the interest of 8.5.% with OP.  The complainant is the nominee of the said FDR an in this regard entry was made in the record of the OP at page No.152, serial no.395. After maturity the complainant approached the OP for release of maturity amount  and submitted relevant documents i.e. affidavit, indemnity bonds and claim application cum declaration with OP on 23.11.2016 and OP assured  that they will release the amount of FDR within 10/15 days but  on 29.12.2016  the complainant again approached OP and requested them to release  the  maturity amount but they refused to release the maturity amount of said FDR. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OP be directed to release the maturity amount of said FDR of Rs.5,43,874/- alongwith upto date interest from the date of maturity i.e. 20.11.2016 till realization,  

ii)     OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation   on account o f mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OP be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, locus standi and cause of action have been taken up. On merits, it is submitted that OP is unable to trace the account opening form and due to that reason the OP is unable to release  the maturity amount. It is further submitted that the OP told the complainant to submit  the succession certificate for release of maturity amount of FDR but till date the complainant failed to supply the same  and due to that reason the OP is unable to release the maturity amount. Moreover the OP is ready to release the maturity amount of FDR immediately after submission of succession certificate by the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

3.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP has tendered an affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence.

4.             It is an admitted case of the  OP that the complainant submitted documents with it  for release of maturity amount of the FDR. The only reason for non-release of  maturity amount of FDR by the OP is that the complainant was asked to submit  the succession certificate  but he failed to supply the same and due to that reason the OP has not released the maturity amount of the FDR.

5.             Further, OP himself has admitted in the reply that  he is unable to trace the account opening form of deceased Roop Singh wherein the entry regarding the nomination of the complainant was made. It is also case of the OP that he is still ready to release the maturity amount of FDR immediately after submission of succession certificate by the complainant. The complainant's specific case in the complaint is that he has already submitted all the relevant documents i.e. affidavit, indemnity bonds and claim application cum declaration with OP as per their demand on 23.11.2016 which fact has not been specifically denied by the OP meaning thereby the complainant has already completed all the formalities for release of maturity amount as per demand of the OP but the OP has not released the maturity amount. The OP has stated in the reply that he is unable to trace the account opening form of deceased Roop Singh  which also shows negligence  and deficiency on the part of the OP.

6.             The complainant has produced on record copy of register of records nominations in respect of deposits of the OP which is Ex.C-6 which also shows that in the column of particulars of depositor the name  of deceased Roop Singh  and particulars of  nominee  the name of complainant i.e. Baljinder Singh are clearly mentioned. Learned counsel for the complainant has cited a ruling namely  K.Gangadar Reddy & another Vs. Gooty Co-operative Town Bank Limited, 2014 (14) R.C.R.( Civil) 470 wherein the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that under section 45-ZA  of B.R. Act, 1949, banker has to pay deposit amounts to nominee. Mere receipt of a legal notice is not a ground for asking nominee to procure succession certificate from a court of law in absence of any order of injunction restraining bank from releasing amount. Respondents no.1 and 2 bank are directed to  release the matured deposit amounts to first petitioner if he is found to be nominee of depositor who is stated to have expired if no injection from any court restraining bank from paying said amount is there.     

7.             From the facts stated above we feel that there is no need to provide the succession  certificate to the OP by complainant for release of maturity amount of the FDR because the complainant has already provided required documents to the OP in this regard.  As such, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to release the maturity amount of the FDR  i.e. Rs.5,43,874/- to the complainant after obtaining an indemnity bond from him. We further direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- being consolidated amount of compensation on account of mental pain, agony harassment and litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                        Announced

                May 18, 2017

 

 

 

 ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Sarita Garg)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                      Member                      Member                      President

 

 

BBS/-