Haryana

Karnal

CC/607/2024

Santosh Kadwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sr. superintendent of Pos Office - Opp.Party(s)

I.C. Kadwal

11 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.607 of 2024

                                                        Date of instt.09.12.2024

                                                        Date of Decision:11.12.2024

 

 

1.     Santosh Kadwal daughter of late Shri Rameshwar Dass and wife of Ishwar Chand Kadwal, H.No.499, Jeevan Vihar-2, Near Ashoka Nursery, Karnal 132001.

2.     Seema Verma daughter of late Shri Rameshwar Dass and wife of Shashi Bhushan, GD-71, Pitampura, Delhi 110088.

 

                                               …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

 

1.     Senior Superintendent of Post office, North District Division, Civil Line, Delhi 110054.

2.     Post Office, Prashant Vihar, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi 110085 through its Post Master.

3.     Union Bank of India, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi 110085 through its Manager.

4.     State Bank of India, DDA Community Centre, D.C.Chowk, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi 110085 through its Manager.

5.     Meenakshi daughter of late Shri Rameshwar Dass, A-39G, Delhi Police Employees Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited, VIJETA Vihar, Sector-13, Rohini Delhi 110085.

                                                                        ……Opposite Parties

 

6.     Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Karnal Division, Karnal 132001.

7.     Post Office, Industrial Area Branch, Karnal 132001 through its Post Master.

8.     Union Bank of India, Model Town, Branch, Karnal 132001 through its Manager.

9.     State Bank of India, Model Town Branch, Karnal 132001, through its Manager.

                                                             …..Performa opposite parties

 

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, as amended up-to-date.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Mrs.Neeru Agarwal.…….Member

      Mrs.Sarvjeet Kaur…..….Member

 

Present:      Shri I.C.Kadwal, counsel for the complainant.

 

                  (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:  

 

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

2.             The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the complainants & OP No.5 are daughters of Late Smt. Raj Bala (Mother) & Shri Rameshwar Dass (Father) and are" Hindu" by religion since birth. The mother namely Smt.Raj Bala & father namely Rameshwar Dass of the complainants & OP No.5 had died on 24.03.2024 & 13.04.2024 respectively intestate leaving behind the complainants and OP No.5 only their legal heirs for the estate left behind by the deceased. After demise of the parents, the complainant No.1 being in ill-health convened a meeting of the complainant No.2 & OP No.5 at her residence at Karnal on 05.05.2024 for amicable distribution of the assets left behind by the deceased and in this meeting, after elaborate discussions, it was mutually decided among themselves that the deposits in the saving schemes listed in the ExA-4 to A-7 inclusive of the deposits listed in the Ex.A-5 are part of the estate of the deceased which are derived out of the same nucleus of the existing deceased's liquid assets and all these assets devolved upon the complainants & OP No.5 are the ancestral in nature in which the complainants & OP No.5 are entitled to 1/3rd share each as surviving legal heirs of the deceased. The OP No.5 had no adequate & sufficient income source prior to the death of the parents except hardly an annual income of Rs.96000/- as per Ex.A-8. The Fixed Deposits in the saving schemes in the name of OP No.5 (Single or Joint name) were purchased from 02.07.2020 to 16.03.2024 by the deceased parents from the accumulated ancestral funds. With a view to facilitate the smooth and amicable distribution of the estate of the deceased as per the mutual agreement, it was decided by the complainants and the OP No.5 among themselves to get issued a "Surviving Member Certificate of the Class-1 Legal Heirs in their favour" from the Competent Revenue Authority and on the basis of said certificate to lodge direct claim for realization of their respective share in the deposits in saving schemes from the OP No.2 to 4 and other financial institutions. The OP No.5, therefore, after collecting the copies of Adhaar ID, photo and other material from the complainants started the process in May, 2024 and materializing as mutually agreed on 05th May, 2024, got herself issued the "Surviving Member Certificate from the Revenue Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, office of the District Magistrate, ALIPUR: North District, Delhi- a Competent Authority in favour of the complainant and in her name (Ex.A-9)-ensuring that their rights as surviving legal heirs are protected and may rightfully claim from OP No.2 to 4 what is due to them.

3.             The Government of India, MOF, (Department of Economic Affairs), by Notification dated 03.07.2023 (ΕΧ. A-10) under Point-9, in the Government Saving Promotion General (Second Amendment) Rules, 2023 in Rule 15, sub-rule-6 has substituted, namely " (6) If a depositor dies and there is no nomination in force at the time of the death, and the probate of his will or letter of administration of estate, or a succession certificate granted under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, or Legal Heir Certificate issued by the revenue authority not below the rank of TEHSILDAR having jurisdiction, is not produced within six months from the date of death of the depositor to the Authorized Officer of the Accounts Office where, the accounts stands", then, (i) if the eligible amount in the account does not exceed Rupee five lakh, the Authorized Officer of the Accounts Office may pay the same to any person as the rightful claimant, (ii) if the eligible amount in a deceased account is above Rupees five lakh, the amount shall be paid by the Accounts office to the claimant on submission of Probate of will or letter of administration or a succession certificate or legal heir certificate. As per the mandate in the GSP Amendment Rules, 2023, the legal heirs of the deceased have been given a liberty to submit the legal heir certificate to the Bankers within the time period of six months of death to claim rights in the deceased's saving scheme deposits. But, in contravention of the amended law in force, the OP-1 to 4 ignoring the prescribed time period of six month and applying about a decade old/ Obsolete RBI or other guidelines released almost all deceased's deposits to an unauthorized person, OP-5 causing a huge loss to the complainants- the beneficiary consumers which is a gross deficiency in service on their part. The Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance in order to remove the existing ambiguities due to multiple acts and rules for small saving schemes and further strengthen the objective of " Minimum Government, Maximum Governance "by Central Act, 13 of 2018 has made merger of "Government Saving Certificate Act, 1959 and PPF Act, 1968" with the Principal "Government Saving Bank Act, 1873 "(Known as Govt. Saving Promotion Act) with a single Act to make implementation easier for Govt. Saving Banks viz. the Banks & Post office Saving Bank. As per Existing Act of 1959 & 1968, if depositor dies and nomination exists, the outstanding balances were to be paid to nominee(s) whereas Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various judgments stated that the nominee(s) merely has right to collect the amount of deceased as trusty for and on behalf of all legal heirs and not as sole beneficiary and the nomination does not supersede the law of succession. It was creating disputes between the provisions of the Acts and verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, role of nominees have now more clearly been defined to avoid further complications and ensuring that assets of deceased goes to the lawful beneficiary, the rights of nominee have been curtailed. Therefore, the Govt. of India in the Government Saving Promotion Act, 2018 has inserted sub- section-4 in Section-4 of the said Act on 29th March, 2018 which reads," The transfer of deposit, if permitted under a Saving Scheme, shall automatically cancel a nomination, previously made" (Exhibited, A-11) Thus looking at section-4(4) of Govt. saving ( promotion) Act, 1873(EX. A-11) clubbed with Section 15(6) of Government Saving( Promotion) General Rules, 2023 (Ex.A-10) the transfer of deposit by Probate of Will or Letter of Administration of Estate or a Succession Certificate granted under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 or Legal Heir Certificate issued by the Revenue Authority not below the rank of TEHSILDAR) permitted in the Saving Schemes supersede the nomination. The nomination for a deposit is automatically cancelled if another way or mode permitted by the saving scheme is operative, as in the present case. Nomination comes into play when other modes for transfer of deceased's deposits as enumerated hereinabove in para-4 are not operative.

4.             After surviving member certificate of legal heir (Ex. A-9), the complainants asked the OP N-5 for filing claim on the basis of said legal heir certificate to which the OP-5 did not show any interest. The complainants, therefore, anticipating the intention of the OP-5 had lodged the claim form dated 31.07.2024(EX. A-12) with the death certificates (EX.A-1 & A-2) and surviving member certificate of the Legal Heirs (EX.A-9) to the OP-2 with proper acknowledgement thereof making a request that they have no trust in the OP-5 as she had turned hostile to them and that the complainants directly be allowed the claim of deceased's deposits for which complainants are ready to comply with the requirements if any. A representation dated 09.08.2024 (Ex. A-14) by complainants was submitted to the OP No.3 by Registered post requesting therein not to release the amount on the basis of any nomination as the same stands superseded & infructuous after legal heir Certificate (Ex.A-9) to which the OP No.3 did not send any satisfactory reply to the complainant. The OP No.1 had directed the OP No.2 vide Memo dated 13.08.2024 (EX. A-13) in reply to the Complainants claim dated 31.07.2024 (Ex. A-12) with a copy thereof to the Complainant No.1 at her residential address of Karnal, that "the deceased claim submitted in respect of POSB A/C of Mrs. Raj Bala & Mr. Rameshwar Dass was scrutinized at their office and found that the claim case submitted by the complainants is supported by Surviving Member Certificate and also submitted without closure Form (Form-11) and without Forms 13,14,15 mentioned in Rule 172 (2) (i) of POSB CBS Manual. "The OP-1 had advised the OP No.2 quoting the Rule 172 (2) (1) and Note 4 of the rule of POSB CBS Manual that if any legal heir preferred claim on the basis of a Succession Certificate, Probate of Will or Letter of Administration before the claim by the nominee, the same may be followed and processed accordingly and to adhere to these guidelines. The OP-1 in these directions did not include the 'Legal Heir Certificate' which was equally convergent at one single aim of distributing the saving scheme deposits of deceased as per Govt. Notification dated 03.07.2023 (Ex.A-10) which is a deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. Knowing the death of Smt. & Shri Rameshwar Dass, the OP-2 to 4 contacted the OP-.5 and misguided her saying that they have no concern with any Legal Heirs certificate to which OP-5 was deeply affected by greed fell victim of their conspiracy. The officials of OPs No.2 to 4 without any further enquiry and securing the rights of the complainants-Legal Heirs and without affording any opportunity to the complainants to extend wrong gains to the OP.5 and wrong loss to the complainants, in an unlawful, arbitrary and hushed up manner for promoting their business in violations of the law in force released several liquid cash/ deposits of saving schemes of the deceased's inclusive of the 2/3rd shares of the complainants on the basis of the said nomination of OP No.5 which stood inoperative and prima- facie transferred the same in the accounts & fixed deposits opened in the name of OP No.5 The complainants, when came to know it, had strongly protested. A sum of Rs.88,12,894/-by OP-2, the sum of Rs.70,00,000/- (Seventy Lacs) approximately by OP-3 & an amount of Rs.10,13,361/- by OP-4 belonging to the deceased estate were released to the OP-5. The acts and manner of performance of the OP-2 to OP-4 required to be maintained under the amended law in force were, thus, at fault in as much as they had no right to appropriate the whole amount to the OP No.5 without satisfying themselves about "legal heirs of the deceased account holder, auto-cancellation of the nomination and Section-6 & abolition of the concept of survivorship in Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005" which by virtue of amendments are absolute in itself. The nomination as presented by the OP-5 to the OP-2 to 4 was not operative and the very acceptance of the same was, therefore, misconceived and in connivance which has caused loss to the complainants and on the principle of vicarious liability, the OP-1 to 4 are liable to pay the amounts due to the complainants. A Nominee can act only as a trusty on behalf of Legal Heirs, if in-force & unprotested and hold such status until a conclusive decision on the matter of succession is reached. So, the OP-2 to 4 are liable for deficiency in service on their part.  OP No.2 in contravention of GOI, MOC's SB Order 01/2023 EX. A/15- A has en-cashed by separate sanction memo to OP-5 in connivance as per details in EX.A/4. Despite complainants objections, no action by OP-1 against OP-2 is a deficiency in service on their part. Approximately an amount of Rs.2,37,09,000/- (Two crores thirty seven lakh nine thousand) in deposits in her name is kept by the OP No.2 to 4 in the name of OP No.5 as listed in the Schedule Ex.A-4 to A-7 which exclusively are related to the deceased's deposits and OP No.1 to have not paid 2/3rd share despite requests by the complainants. The complainants had lodged the complaint dated 26.08.2024 (EX. A-15) by Registered Post from Industrial Area Post office, KARNAL to the OP- 1 against the OP-2 for initiating necessary departmental and penal action and restore the deceased accounts and release the payment to the Complainants as per their share, but no response to the said complaint. The complainants sent legal notices dated 16/09/2024 to OP-1 to 4 (EX. A-16, A-17,A- 18) by Registered Post of Industrial Area Post office, Karnal to release the 2/3rd share in the deceased deposits along-with deceased's better deposit particulars. The complainants have waited for their reply and despite expiry of time period of 60 days, the OP-1 to 4, not replied the legal notices and deliberately with-held the information of better deposit particulars of deceased vis-a-vis the deficiency in service. The complainants therefore as beneficiary consumers, have no other remedy except to approach this Hon'ble Commission.

5.             Arguments on the point of admissibility heard.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainants, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has submitted that the present complaint is maintainable before this Commission as complainant No.1 is residing at Karnal, therefore, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. He further argued that Rs.1,58,06,000/- were paid by the user for himself and for the beneficiary, therefore, no fee is payable by the complainants as beneficiary and this Commission has also the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and lastly prayed for notice to the OPs.  He placed reliance on the case titled as Arun Bhatiya Versus HDFC Bank and others 2022 (4) RCR (Civil) 81 (SC).

7.             First question arises for consideration before us is that whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint?

Jurisdiction of District Commission has been described in Section 34 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced as under:-

(2)            A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:-

a)             the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

b)             any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of District Commission is given; or

c)             the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

d)             the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

               

8.             Only the complainant No.1 resides at Karnal. The complainant No.2 resides at Delhi and addresses of the all the OPs are also of Delhi. From the entire pleadings it reveals that the cause of action has also not arisen at Karnal. The complainants have impleaded the branch offices of the OPs as performa opposite parties in order to make the territorial jurisdiction. Only the branch offices of the OPs situated at Karnal, does not mean that this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. In this regard, we relied upon the case titled as M/S. Sonic Surgical vs National Insurance Company Ltd, date of decision 20 October, 2009, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the branch office does not mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. The expression 'branch office' would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.     

9.             Hence, in view of the above, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

10.           Second question arises for consideration before us is that whether this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint?

11.           Pecuniary Jurisdiction has been defined in Section 34 (1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced as under:-

Section 34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees.

Vide notification issued by the Department of Consumer affairs dated 30^th day of December, 2021, District Commission is having jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed fifty lakh rupees.

12.           In the present complaint, the predecessor of the complainants had deposited an amount of Rs.1,58,06,000/- in the Post office. For deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction, value of the goods or services paid is to be considered and not the claimed amount. In the present complaint, the predecessor of the complainants had deposited Rs.2,37,09,000/- and complainants have claimed 2/3^rd of the deposited amount, whereas as per the notification dated 30^th day of December, 2021, this Commission is having  pecuniary jurisdiction to decide and entertain the complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed fifty lakh rupees.  Hence, this Commission is also having no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

13.           As per section 35 (c) a complaint may be filed by one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Commission, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested. In the present complaint the interest of both the complainants are same but they have not filed an application for seeking permission of this Commission to file the present complaint jointly. Hence, the requirement of Section 35 (C) of Consumer Protection, Act, 2019, is also not fulfilled in the present complaint.

14.           Further, learned counsel for the complainant has alleged that the complainants are the beneficiaries of the deceased, therefore, they have no need to affix the requisite fee alongwith the complainant but the learned counsel for the complainant has failed to show section, rules or authorities vide which requisite fee has been exempted.  

15.          Further from the perusal of the complaint it reveals that there is family dispute with regard to distribution of the assets left behind by the deceased. The facts which the complainant wants to prove, cannot be adjudicated in a summary process and without leading detailed examination/ cross examination of the witnesses as in the complaint complicated issues are to be decided. Hence, the best platform to decide the matter in dispute is the Civil/Criminal Court where elaborate and detailed testimony can be produced by the parties and in order to prove the issues involved in the present complaint, Court can cross examined the same. In this regard, we are placed reliance upon the observations made in case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007 (4) CPJ Page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court. Further, in case titled as M/s The Bills through its Proprietor Versus PNB reported in 1998 (1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh it has been held that complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

16.           Hence, in view of the above discussion and facts and circumstances of the complaint, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and same deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed in limine. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated: 11.12.2024                                                                    

                                                                     President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Neeru Agarwal)              (Sarvjeet Kaur)

     Member                          Member