IMPORTANT POINT
Banking Services – Release of amount of deceased claimed by nominees – Nomination process does not override succession laws.

JUDGMENT

B. Sudheendra Kumar, President.—The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 127/2014 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (for short “the District Commission”).

2. The respondent filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service against the appellant. The respondent is the widow of deceased Ravindran. On 23.02.2014, the said Ravindran died. The respondent and her daughter are the only legal heirs of the deceased Ravindran. During the life time, the said Ravindran invested Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only) as fixed deposit in the bank of the appellant for twelve months from 13.12.2011. The respondent is the nominee for the said fixed deposit. After the death of Ravindran, the respondent approached the appellant for getting the amount released from the bank. At that time, the appellant informed the respondent that the amount could be released if the respondent would produce the court order in this regard. The appellant had no right to direct the respondent to bring the court order for releasing the amount to the nominee. Therefore, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. In the said circumstances, the respondent prayed for a direction to the appellant to release the fixed deposit amount mentioned above with penal interest and compensation of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only).

3. The appellant filed version contending that the respondent issued a letter dated 08.03.2014 to the appellant requesting to release the fixed deposit amount to her. The appellant sent a reply intimating the respondent about the claim of Shalini and others, who are sisters of the deceased Ravindran, over the fixed deposit amount. Therefore, the respondent was requested to produce an order from a competent court to enable the bank to release the amount to the respondent. A suit filed by the said Shalini and others are pending before the Munsiff Court as OS 185/14. The aforesaid suit is based on a registered Will executed by the deceased Ravindran bequeathing all his estate, including all bank deposits, to Shalini and others. The appellant did not intentionally delay the release of the amount. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant. Seven other complaints, filed for different fixed deposit amounts, are also pending.

4. PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked for the respondent. DW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 to B9 were marked for the appellant. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the appellant to release the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only) with interest to the respondent. It was also directed by the District Commission to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as costs to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records.

6. The learned advocates on both sides have advanced argument supporting their respective contentions.

7. It is not disputed that the deceased Ravindran had a fixed deposit for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only) in the bank of the appellant at the time of his death. It is also not disputed that the respondent was the nominee for the said amount. Mr. Raveendran died on 23.02.2014. When the respondent approached the appellant for the release of the above said fixed deposit amount to her, the appellant told the respondent to produce a court order for releasing the amount, as the appellant had already received a claim on the said deposit from the sisters of the deceased Ravindran. The sisters of the said Ravindran filed OS 185/14 before the Munsiff Court, Kannur. In that suit, an order in I.A. 1314/2014 was stated to have been passed by the Court restraining the appellant from releasing the fixed deposit amou