This is a complaint made by  one Amiya Kanti Mukherjee, Vill & P.O. -  Ajodhya, P. S. – Bishnupur, Dist.-Bankura against United Bank of India, Tollygunge Tram Depot Branch, praying for direction upon the OP for returning Rs.2,87,336.12 with interest @ 5% till the final payment and to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation and Rs.60,000/- as litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that on 17.2.2002 and 13.4.2007 the brother and the wife of his brother passed away. Complainant came to learn that they had some accounts (Savings Bank) in United Bank of India, Tollygunge Tram Depot Branch. Complainant issued a letter to the respective Branch on 2.7.2007 and the Branch told him to submit legal warrison certificate and he submitted the certificate. After that the Bank told him to produce succession certificate which is necessary. For that Complainant went to the Court for obtaining succession certificate. He received the succession certificate from the Court on 12.6.2009 as per Bank statement and he submitted succession certificate in the branch both by hand and by post. But, he has not received any response from the Bank. Then he issued reminders on 2010, 2011 and last 22.4.2013. On 29.9.2015 he issued a letter to the Bank Chairman with all his documents. The Chairman told him to meet with the Branch Manager and he met the Branch Manager and submitted all the documents. But, he did not get any response from the Bank authority. Finally, in the last week of January, 2016, he submitted an application to Consumer Affair and Fair Business Practices took place. For mediation they gave two dates. But, Bank authority remained absent. But he has not received any money from the account. So, he filed this complaint.

            OP filed written version and denied all the allegations of the Complainant. Further, it is stated that from office record, it appears that one Gita Mukherjee with two others namely Ujjayani Sanyal and Bithika Sanyal jointly operated the Savings Bank account No.87238. Further, Bank has stated that Anil Mukherjee was account holder No.14168 and Anil Krishna Mukherjee was account holder of No.4359. Bank has contended that on the death of Anil Mukherjee on 17.2.2002 his wife applied on 10.4.2002 for mode of operation by either any one of us or survivor with Form No.60 of Income Tax Dept. and OP sanctioned the said mode of operation to Gita Mukherjee, Ujjayani Sanyal and Bithika Sanyal. After demise of Gita Mukherjee on 13.4.2007 as per mode of operation Rs.2,00,000/- on 8.6.2009 and Rs.84,500/- on 27.10.2010 was withdrawn from Savings Bank A/C No.87238. The other survivors viz. Ujjayani Sanyal and Bithika Sanyal jointly applied on 26.10.2010 for closing the said Savings Bank A/C No.87238. As the two survivors did not comply the other formalities the said A/C stands inactive and the balance stands as on 21.3.2016 as Rs.1,803/- and the A/C stands till now in the name of Anil Mukherjee.

            Further, Amiya Kanti Mukherjee, Complainant, informed OP for the first time in respect of succession certificate. Complainant is reported to prove his claim which he failed. So, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons :

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. On perusal of the complaint, it appears that the Complainant has claimed money in respect of the Account No.0675010014168 having balance of Rs.5939.04, No.067510004359 having balance of Rs.3252 and A/C  No.0675010087238 having balance of Rs. 2,78,145/- in the name of Gita Mukherjee.

On perusal of written statement, it appears that the contention of OP is that the A/C No.87238 is in the name of Gita Mukherjee lying with Ujjayani Sanyal and Bithika Sanyal. So, in absence of any evidence that Ujjayani Sanyal and Bithika Sanyal died the Complainant cannot be entitled for any money lying in this A/C. Similarly, A/C No.14168 is in the name of Anil Mukherjee and after his death his wife applied for that and the said mode of operation was granted to Gita Mukherjee and also Ujjayani Sanyal and Bithika Sanyal for A/C No.87238. So, the amount lying in the A/C mentioned by the Complainant do not appear to be such that Complainant is entitled to get the amount on the basis of succession certificate.

 A succession certificate is an evidence of the fact which empowers a person to succeed to the property of the deceased only after there is no claimant of the property, and the Bank has to disburse the property after considering all the aspects. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this complaint.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/99/2016 is dismissed on contest.