CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K, Member Date of filing: 04/10/2011
CC / 167 / 2011
Ramesh
S/o. Balakrishnan,
Manikanda Nilayam,
Palode P.O,
Mannarkkad Via,
Palakkad – 678 583 - Complainant
(PARTY IN PERSON)
Vs
The Secretary,
Mannarkkad Taluk Govt. Employees-
Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,
No. P.630,
Mannarkkad P.O,
Palakkad Dt. - Opposite party
(BY ADV. T.K. SUNIL)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief:-
Complainant herein is the grandson of Late Smt. Parukutty Amma who has an fixed deposit of Rs. 50,000/- with the opposite party. The depositor has two daughters. It is said that one of the daughter has filed a civil case against the said Parukutty Amma. The case was posted for hearing on 03/02/10, on the previous day of hearing Parukutty Amma committed suicide. Complainant was the nominee for the said amount. The grievance of the complainant is that though complainant requested the Secretary of opposite party bank to release the amount to him, opposite party failed to release the amount. Hence the complaint.
Opposite party admits fixed deposit by the grandmother of the complainant, who is the nominee to the deposit. After the death of the depositor, the legal heirs of Parukutty Amma and also nominee/complainant has claimed the fixed amount. Opposite party has informed to the complainant that amount will be released only on the basis of the Succession certificate issued from the Court. It is also informed that only the heirs has right over the said amount. Suit for Succession certificate in which complainant herein is also a party is pending before the Hon’ble Munsiff Court, Mannarkkad. According to opposite parties there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Both parties filed chief affidavit. Ext. A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence on the side of the opposite party.
Issues to be considered are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issue No. I & II
The specific grievance of the complainant is that opposite party failed to release the fixed amount of his grandmother to him being the nominee.
Opposite party contented that as there was dispute between the nominee and legal heir, so the amount could not be released only on the basis of the Succession certificate. The Succession is pending before the Hon’ble Munsiff Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad.
Heard both parties and gone through the evidence on record.
Fixed deposit by Late Parukkutty Amma is admitted. As per Ext. A1 letter , bank has requested the legal heirs and the nominee to produce the succession certificate for the release of the amount. Complainant herein has filed 3 cases with respect to 3 deposits. Copy of the succession OP filed was marked in the connected case. Whether succession certificate is issued or not is not stated by the complainant. As per the version of the opposite party we understand that it is still pending.
It is seen that Late Parukutty Amma has two daughters and complainant herein is the son of one of the daughter. The said daughter is alive also. So at present complainant herein is not a legal heir. Admittedly complainant is the nominee for the deposits of Late Parukkutty Amma. The limited question that arise for our consideration is whether the act of opposite party withholding the amount by not releasing it to the nominee can be justified.
Section 45(ZA(2)) of the Banking Regulation Act read as follows:
Not withstanding 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 depositors, became entitled to all the rights 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 depositors 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 valid or canceled in the prescribed manner.
Section 45(ZA) of the Act merely put the nominee in the shoes of the depositor after her death and clothes him with the exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. It gives him all the rights of the depositor. But it by no stretch of imagination makes the nominee the owner of the money lying in the account.
The legal position of nominee has always been accepted to be that of a trustee and nomination is not considered to be a kind of testamentary Succession. RBI guidelines specifies that deceased’s nominee would receive the money in the capacity of a trustee of legal heirs.
Complainant has no case that there is any will pertaining to the said deposits. Complainant even though stated that a letter has been issued by his grandmother to the opposite party for releasing the amount to the complainant, nothing was brought on record.
In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to attribute deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of January, 2012
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext. A1 – Notice (original) issued by the opposite party dated 27/01/2011.
Ext. A2 – Letter (copy) from Reserve Bank of India to the complainant dated 21/02/2011.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
Nil.
Forwarded by / By order
Senior Superintendent
