SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency-in-service against the Opp. Parties.
2. The factual matrix of this case is that the complainant is the second daughter of deceased Surendra Bar, who died on 11.8.2013. During his life time, said Surendra Bar had deposited one fixed deposit before OP No.2 vide A/c No.5726/36/0203 (RIP-9283) and the maturity value was Rs.1,40,123/-. He had placed one Narahari Bar, the brother of the complainant, as the nominee. After the death of her father, she had requested OP No.2 for release of the maturity amount of Rs.2,78,330/- in her favour. But the OP No.2 did not respond it. Rather, OP No.2 is preparing to release the same in favour of others. It is further stated that the OP No.2 had no right to held up the payment in her favour. It is further stated that the complainant is passing her days with mental agony as because she has not yet get her legitimate claims from the OP No.2 irrespective of repeated approach. Therefore, the Ops are liable for deficiency in service. Hence, this case.
To substantiate her case, the complainant has relied on the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder-
- Photocopy of Aadhar Card & Identity Card.
- Photocopy of Death certificate of Surendra Bar.
- Photocopy of Reinvestment Certificate issued by Ops.
- Photocopy of letter issued by competent authority showing family members of deceased Surendra Bar.
3. In the present case, neither the Ops have made their appearance nor filed version, for which they were set ex parte.
4. On perusal of Annexure-4, the family member certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Balasore, it is reflected that deceased Surendra Bar had eight family members in total- (1) wife Saraswati Bar, married daughters (2) Manjulata Bar, (3) Sanjulata Pandit, (4) Ranjulata Jena, (5) Anjulatea Bari, unmarried daughter (6) Pinkilata Bar and (7) Santilata Bar and (8) Omm Prakash Bar, both are wife and son of his deceased son Narahari Bar.
5. It is an admitted fact that the deceased son of the deceased reinvestment certificate holder Surendra Bar was the nominee in respect of the fixed deposit, as stated, before the Ops. The nomination only indicated the hand which was authorized to receive the amount on the payment of which the deceased Surendra Bar got a valid discharge of its liability under the deposit. The reinvestment certificate holder continued to have interest in the fixed deposit amount during his lifetime and the nominee acquired no sort of interest in the fixed deposit during the lifetime of the certificate holder. On the death of the fixed deposit certificate holder, the amount payable under the fixed deposit certificate became part of his estate which was governed by the Law of Succession applicable to him. The nominee could not be treated as being equivalent to an heir or legatee. The amount of interest under the fixed deposit certificate could, therefore, be claimed by the heirs of the fixed deposit certificate holder in accordance with law of succession governing them. In the present case, admittedly, the nominee Narahari Bar, who was the son of the fixed deposit certificate holder, said to have been dead. Therefore, the family members, who are the legal heirs, of deceased Surendra Bar vide Annexure-4 are entitled to get the equal benefit of the claim, as admitted by the complainant in her complaint petition. No doubt, the complainant is a legal heir of deceased Surendra Bar, but she cannot solely entitled to the benefit under the fixed deposit certificate vide Annexure-3, as claimed by her. Therefore, the Ops have rightly withheld the claim of the complainant in not disbursing the monetary benefit under the fixed deposit certificate in favour of the complainant. Hence, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Ops have not at all committed any deficiency in service in respect of the claim of the complainant.
6. In the result, the claim of the complainant merits no consideration and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 14th day of October, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
