Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 4469
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
V. Kalpana & Another - Petitioners
Versus
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chennai & Another - Respondents
W.P. No. 13809 of 2018
Decided On : 12-12-2018
For the Petitioners:G. Senthilkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: K. Chandrasekaran, R. Veludas, Central Govt. Standing Counsel.
Headnote:
Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 - Section 8 (3) - Public Provident Fund Scheme Account – Claim of amount in account - When he was a bachelor he opened a Public Provident Fund Scheme Account bearing Account in Pass Book with first respondent for a period of fifteen years making his mother as nominee - His mother died - During and he extended account for another five years - He died leaving behind petitioners as his legal heirs - First petitioner approached first respondent making a claim with respect to amount lying in said account - She was asked to submit a claim form with certain documents which she had complied with - It is stated that first respondent forwarded same to Claims Department of respondent Bank - After repeated solicitation she was given a copy of communication sent to first respondent by Regional Manager returning proposal - Though she made another representation first respondent gave a bald reply asking her to produce letter of administration - Representation submitted to Regional Manager thereafter did not yield any response at all till date - Hence seeking a direction to first respondent to release amount standing to credit of said account petitioners filed this writ petition before this Court - Refuting claim of petitioners in writ petition and substantiating their stand first respondent filed a counter affidavit - Heard submissions of counsel on either side and perused materials available on record It is unfortunate that petitioners lost care love and affection of husband and father respectively - Second petitioner is a college student at time of death of his father - Petitioners made a claim for return of amount that was saved for their welfare by deceased in Public Provident Fund Scheme Account - But it was rejected on hyper-technical grounds - When it rains umbrella has to be given not at time of fair weather - That could be construed to be best service - It is not in dispute that deceased nominated his mother when he opened account - She died - Thereafter he failed to change/add nomination - Even an educated professional was not sensitized about necessity of changing nomination after marriage or at least after death of nominee - Whether there is a nomination in an account or not - Held, Court is of view that notification issued in year requires amendment periodically increasing monetary limit and it cannot be compelled to be followed for ever - Further apropos return of proposal it is relevant to state that first respondent claimed that Public Provident Fund Scheme is framed under Public Provident Fund Act -Section 8 of Act reads - Payment on death of subscriber - If a subscriber dies and there is in force at time of his death a nomination in favour of any person all amounts standing to his credit in Fund shall be payable to nominee - Where nominee is a minor amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be payable to any guardian of property of minor appointed by a competent court or where no such guardian has been so appointed to either parent of minor or where neither parent is alive to any other guardian of minor - Where there is no nomination in force at time of death of subscriber amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be payable to his legal heirs - A perusal of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of Act would make it clear that legal heirs of deceased subscriber is entitled to receive all amounts standing to credit of Fund - Conditions stipulated in scheme such as asking legal heirs to produce letter of indemnity affidavit letter of disclaimer etc is only to ensure that amounts should reach right hands - In case on hand petitioners produced all documents required to ensure that amount is made available to right people - In addition to letter of indemnity and other documents they have also produced sureties as required by Bank to meet out exigency if any by way of rival claim - In such circumstances driving petitioners to approach court to obtain letter of administration after giving evidence etc - will only add fuel to their agony - It is brought to notice of this Court that petitioners have already submitted necessary documents to first respondent as mandated under Scheme such as Indemnity Bond Security to amount equivalent to amount of claim Affidavits Legal Heirship Certificate Letter of Disclaimer etc - In aforesaid circumstances first respondent is directed to satisfy himself about correctness of documents already submitted and thereafter shall release amount standing to credit of Account in Pass Book maintained under PPF Scheme along with interest at applicable rates till date of payment petitioners within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order - Writ Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The Bank Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969 was promulgated on 19.07.1969, followed by Act 5 of 1970. The Preamble of the Act reads as follows :
“An Act to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the undertakings of certain banking companies, having regard to their size, resources, coverage and organisation, in order to control the heights of the economy and to meet progressively and serve better, the needs of development of the economy in conformity with national policy and objectives .....”
2. Even before the first nationalization of 14 Banks in the year 1969 and the second nationalization of 6 Banks in the year 1980, the Imperial Bank was nationalised in 1955, making it the State Bank of India/the first respondent herein. The object of the nationalization, inter alia, is to “serve better”.
3. The petitioners are wife and son of one Natarajan, who professed Advocacy from the year 1987. When he was a bachelor, he opened a Public Provident Fund Scheme Account bearing Account No.10150944952 in Pass Book No.1015 with the first respondent on 24.03.1995 for a period of fifteen years making his mother as nominee. His mother died on 23.10.1999. During 2010 and 2015, he extended the account for another five years. He died on 28.07.2017 leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. The first petitioner approached the first respondent making a claim with respect to the amount lying in the said account. She was asked to submit a claim form with certain documents, which she had complied with on 04.11.2017. It is stated that the first respondent forwarded the same to the Claims Department of the respondent Bank on 07.11.2017. After repeated solicitation, on 09.01.2018, she was given a copy of communication sent to the first respondent by the Regional Manager (RBO-I), returning the proposal. Though she made another representation on 12.02.2018, the first respondent gave a bald reply asking her to produce the letter of administration. The representation submitted to the Regional Manager (RBO-I) thereafter on 17.03.2018 did not yield any response at all till date. Hence, seeking a direction to the first respondent to release the amount standing to the credit of the said account, the petitioners filed this writ petition before this Court.
4. Refuting the claim of the petitioners in the writ petition and substantiating their stand, the first respondent filed a counter affidavit.
5. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is unfortunate that the petitioners lost the care, love and affection of the husband and the father respectively. The second petitioner is a college student at the time of death of his father. The petitioners made a claim for return of the amount, that was saved for their welfare by the deceased in the Public Provident Fund Scheme Account. But it was rejected on hyper-technical grounds. When it rains, umbrella has to be given, not at the time of fair weather. That could be construed to be the best service.
7. It is not in dispute that the deceased nominated his mother, when he opened the account. She died on 23.10.1999. Thereafter, he failed to change/add the nomination. Even an educated professional was not sensitized about the necessity of changing nomination, after the marriage or at least after the death of the nominee.
8. Though the nomination is at the option of a customer, it is also the responsibility of the Banks to educate the customers about the significance of making nominations, changing/adding nominations. After the digitization of all records and transactions, at the click of the mouse, a Bank can find out as to whether there is a nomination in an account or not. If there is no nomination in any account, the concerned customer could be informed in writing or by way of SMS about the same inviting his option. In fact, it appears that the Reserve Bank of India directed the banks to obtain nominat
