State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rukmani Bai vs Idbi Bank on 23 December, 2017
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 1992 /2016.
DECIDED ON :23.12.2017.
Rukmani Bai,
w/o Shri Balram,
R/o Gram Ghoghadiya,
Tehsil & District Rajgarh (M.P.).
.... Appellant.
Versus
Branch Manager,
I.D.B.I. Bank,
Branch Rajgarh (M.P.).
.... Respondent.
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA, PRESIDENT
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
SHRI SURESH INDOREKAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.
ORDER
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Rakesh Saksena, J. :
Appellant / complainant has filed this appeal against the order dated 24.11.2016 passed by District Forum, Rajgarh in CC No.144/2016 whereby her complaint has been partly allowed.
2. In short, the case of the complainant is that she was the wife of Balram s/o Poorji alias Narbhe Singh. Balram opened an account in Rajgarh
- 2- Branch of IDBI Bank. At the time of opening that account Central Government started a scheme by name Pradhan Mantri Jeewan Suraksha Yojna (for short "PMJSY'). This scheme provided the account holder to deposit Rs.12/- as a premium of insurance under which the account holder was insured for Rs. 2 lacs. An amount of Rs.12/- was also deducted by way of premium from the account of Balram, therefore, he was covered under the insurance scheme. It is alleged that on 14.11.2015 Balram met with an accident and died. When complainant (wife) approached to Bank and demanded the insurance amount, the Bank declined her request. It is alleged by the complainant that she was the legal heir of her husband and her name was also recorded in the Bank record as a nominee, therefore, the conduct of the Bank in not paying the insured amount to her amounted to deficiency in service. Despite repeated request since Bank did not make payment of the insurance amount, the complainant approached to District Forum by filing the instant complaint.
3. The respondent / opposite party / Bank contested the claim of complainant on the ground that deceased Balram, when opened the account made Nirbhay Singh nominee, therefore, the Bank was justified in not making payment to complainant. The Bank endeavoured to call Nirbhay Singh, but he did not appear.
4. The District Forum after perusal of evidence adduced in the case held that nominee of the account of deceased was Nirbhay Singh, therefore, the complainant was not entitled to receive the amount of insurance from the Bank, and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has preferred this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that even if the complainant was not nominee in the Bank account of her husband,
- 3- she was entitled to insurance benefit because she was the legal heir of her husband. Since no other person appeared to claim the benefit of insurance, before the Bank, the Bank should not have denied the payment of insurance amount to her.
6. We have heard learned counsel and perused the record carefully.
7. The Bank has not disputed that husband of complainant opened the account and paid the premium for insurance under the scheme, but the only objection raised by the Bank was that it could make payment only to a person in respect of which the nomination was made by the account holder. From the document Annexure C/4, the pass-book of the deceased, it is apparent that he had made nomination in favour of Nirbhay Singh. Another inconsistency which appears from the record is that almost in all the documents including ration card, death certificate and the police report under Section 174, Cr. P.C. name of father of Balram has been shown as Poorji. Complainant averred that Poorji was also called by name of Narbhe Singh. It has nowhere been stated by anybody that Nirbhay Singh in whose favour the nomination of the Bank stood was not alive.
8. Apart from the above circumstances, according to the provisions of Section 45ZA (2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 the Bank was supposed to make payment only to a nominee for discharge of its liability. The payment of the amount to nominee as per law did not affect the right or claim which any other person might have against the person to whom payment was made under nomination. For ready reference provisions of Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 are quoted hereunder :-
- 4-
"45ZA. Nomination for payment of depositor's money. ---
-(1) Where a deposit is held by a banking company to the credit of one or more persons, the depositor or, as the case may be, all the depositors together, may nominate, in the prescribed manner, one person to whom in the event of the death of the sole depositor or the death of all the depositors, the amount of deposit may be returned by the banking company.
(2) Nothwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, in respect of such deposit, where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to receive the amount of deposit from the banking company, the nominee shall, on the death of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, on the death of all the depositors, become entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, of the depositors, in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner.
(3) Where the nominee is a minor, it shall be lawful for the depositor making the nomination to appoint in the prescribed manner any person to receive the amount of deposit in the event of his death during the minority of the nominee.
(4) Payment by a banking company in accordance with the provisions of this section shall constitute a full discharge to the banking company of its liability in respect of the deposit :
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect the right or claim which any person may have against the person to whom any payment is made under this section."
9. The District Forum, in our opinion, was justified in observing that in summary jurisdiction of the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act it was not feasible to decide as to who could be the legal heir of deceased account holder, entitled for receiving the payment of the Bank account or insurance amount after the death of account holder. There may be number of legal heirs of deceased who could lay their claim for the insurance amount. The question as to who could really be entitled, according to law, for receiving the amount as legal heir of deceased could only be decided by the Civil Court. In our opinion, in the
- 5- given circumstances and in the light of provisions of Banking Regulation Act, the District Forum committed no error in dismissing the complaint. We find no ground to take a contrary view. The appeal being sans merit is dismissed without notice to other side.
(Justice Rakesh Saksena) PRESIDENT Phadke