P.K. Shamsuddin, President - This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Trivandrum, in O.P. No. 945/92. Opposite Parties are the appellants.

2. The complainant's father K Janardanan had S.B. Account with the first opposite party. Janardanan died on 15-12-1991. The balance to his credit was Rs. 3,136.50. The complainant contacted the opposite parties for disbursement of the amount to the legal representatives of the deceased. The complainant and his sister Sarasakumari are the legal heirs. As demanded by the first opposite party the heirship certificate was produced. The printed questionnaire was also duly filled up by the complainant and his sister. Sister assigned her claim over the amount to the complainant and it is stated in the heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Chirayinkil, dated 15-4-1992. But the amount was not disbursed to the complainant. On 3010-1992 a registered notice for the purpose was issued to the opposite parties. According to the complainant, there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The opposite parties filed version admitting the Savings Bank Account of deceased Janardanan and the out-standing balance to his credit but contending that there is no deficiency in service on their part. According to them, the delay occurred due to the obstinacy of the complainant to comply with the request. The complainant produced death certificate and heirship certificate before the first opposite party on 17-5-1992 which was forwarded to the Head Office for sanction. As per the provisions of law and the practice followed by the Bank he was asked to file an indemnity bond and statement cum affidavit as directed by the Head Office. He was also asked to get a disclaimer form signed by the sister as she was not willing to join the indemnity bond. But the complainant refused to comply with these requisites and insisted on getting the amount. He took an adament stand on the basis of observations in the heirship certificate that the right of the daughter has been released in favour of the son. The certificate is not conclusive proof relating to legal heirs and the waiver of right is to be done before the Bank in the prescribed form. It was essential for the Bank to get a full discharge of the liability unless any heir is duly authorised by the other heirs to receive the money or execute a letter of disclaimer. As a matter of fact the first opposite party prepared the indemnity bond in August, 1992 and requested the complainant and other heirs to affix their signatures. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Forum has observed that Ext. D2 is the declaration and Ext. D3 is the bond prepared on the basis of the list of names furnished to the Bank by the complainant though the complainant did not admit this fact. Ext. D4 is the copy of the letter addressed by the first opposite party to the complainant calling him for settlement of the claim and Ext D5 is the reply. They are dated 23-8-1993 and 8-9-1993. In Ext:-D5 the complainant has stated that the Branch Manager was evading payment. It is also stated that the question is whether the objection already raised by the Branch Manager in this regard has since been waived off. He also requested to inform him the decision of the Manager to which a reply Ext. D6 was sent stating that they are prepared to release to the complainant the amount in balance together with interest on the basis of heirship certificate as a special case. It appears that the complainant was not satisfied with that. However the complainant sent Ext. D7 reply stating that he was not in a position to agree with the terms suggested in the letter as there was delay. The complainant would get only Bank interest available on S.B. Account.

5. The District Forum stated that the ir book-let published by the State Bank of Tra - vancore for settlem