IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 13.04.2015 Date of hearing: 15.02.2022 Date of Decision: 16.03.2022 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 190/2015 IN THE MATTER OF ICICI BANK LTD., 2^ND FLOOR, VIDEOCON TOWER, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI (Through: Hemant Gupta and Associates)

…Appellant VERSUS MANJEET KAUR W/O SH. CHARANJIT SINGH R/O- E-893, CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI.

(Through: Mr. Raja Harpal Singh, Advocate)

… Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE SH. RAJAN SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: None for the parties.

PER: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case necessary as per the District Forum record are:

“The late husband of the complainant namely Sh. Charanjeet Singh was maintaining different accounts with the OP bank. He had expired on 9.7.2008 in Pakistan. The complainant had written letters on 27/9/2008 and 1/12/2008 to the OP informing it about the death of her husband. It is alleged by the complainant that after the death of her husband, the OP had no power to operate his accounts. It is alleged by her that the Operation of the accounts of the deceased after 1.12.2008 was unauthorized and against the law. It is also alleged by the complainant that the amounts standing at credit of the deceased account holders was liable to be paid to his legal heirs. It is alleged that on 5.7.2011 a sum of Rs 314592.70 being the sale proceeds of some shares belonging to the deceased was credited to his account which was liable to be released to his LRs. It is alleged that instead of releasing the amount to the LRs of the deceased, the OP has illegally credited an amount of Rs 253311/- on 24.9.2011 to the loan account of the deceased to liquidate his bank dues. It is alleged that this act of the OP bank was illegal in as much as it had no right to appropriate the amount to the deceased loan account. The complainant, therefore. wrote a letter dated 31.10.2011 asking the OP to release the amount lying to the credit of the deceased to her after reverting the illegal appropriation made as aforesaid. The OP bank has failed to oblige which had led the complainant to approach this forum by means of the present complaint.”

2. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 05.01.2015, whereby it held as under:

“The complainant has deposed that she had written letters dated 27.09.2008 and 1.12.2008 informing the OP bank that her husband had expired on 9.7.2008. she has further deposed that she had also supplied to the OP the death certificate issued by the concerned authority at Lahore. The complainant has also placed on record the courier receipts vide which these letters we sent to the bank. The OP bank on its part has not specifically denied the receipt of these letters. We are, therefore, convinced that the complainant had informed the OP bank about the death of her husband vide these letters. The further question for consideration is as to whether, the OP bank was within its rights to exercise its right of lien and debit the account of the deceased in order to liquidate the loan account held by him with the OP bank. Whereas, it is contended by the OP bank that it had acted U/s 171 Indian Contract Act and was within its rights to exercise the right of lien, the complainant has contended that the bank had no right to operate the account and further had no right of lien to debit the account of the deceased in order to liquidate his loan account. The OP bank has not placed on record any mater to show that it had the authority to operate the account even after had been informed about the death of the account holder and exercise the right of lien. The complainant on the other hand has placed on record instructions/ directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 9.6.2009 for settlement of the claims in respect of the deceased depositors. The instructions make it amply clear