PARITOSH SINHA vs C.G.M. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

THE consumer dispute out of which this appeal has arisen raises an interesting point of law. THE appellant-complainant filed a complaint against the United Bank of India, Sonarpur Branch, seeking a direction from the Calcutta District Forum for the issue of duplicate copies of two Fixed Deposit Receipts and for payment of money dues in the said fixed deposits. THE facts are undisputed and the same may be stated as follows.

THE appellant had two fixed deposits for Rs. 11,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively and one S.B. Account in the Sonarpur Branch of the United Bank of India in the joint names of the appellant and his wife. THE Bank used to transfer the quarterly interest from the Fixed Deposit A/c to S.B. A/c. THE terms of both the Fixed Deposit Accounts and the Saving Bank Account were "either or survivor", the appellant''s wife died on 26.6.91. THE appellant alleges to have lost the Fixed Deposit Receipts while shifting his residence sometimes in August, 1991. THE fact of loss of the Fixed Deposit Receipts was intimated to the Sonarpur Police Station by way of two G.D. entries being G.D. No. 670 dated 12.8.91 and G.D. No. 1597 dated 11.8.92 of the Sonarpur P.S. Thereafter the appellant wrote several letters to the Bank authorities seeking duplicate copies of the Fixed Deposit Receipts but to no effect until at last the Bank informed that the originals of the Fixed Deposit Receipt were actually in the possession of the son and daughter of the deceased Juthika Dutta (who have been made parties in both the complaint and the "appeal) and the Bank pleaded its inability to issue duplicate copies of the documents in the face of the knowledge that the originals were in existence. In the meantime Fixed Deposits became mature but the Bank refused to make any payment to the appellant as a "survivor" in the absence of the original Fixed Deposit Receipt and a succession certificate.

The District Forum having heard the parties and considered their submissions held that no duplicate copy could be issued by the Bank when the original was in existence. The Forum also held that the Bank was correct in its view that succession certificate was necessary as the son and daughter of the deceased Juthika Dutta were her legal heirs.

THE point for determination is if the views expressed by the Calcutta District Forum are correct. The Bank does not dispute that on the basis of the "either or survivor" clause the account deposited in a joint account goes to the survivor. In fact this is a contractual obligation which cannot normally be avoided at the instance of a third party. It seems that the Bank has recognised the interception of the son and daughter of the deceased on the ground that they as heirs to their mother are entitled claim a share in her property.

THIS leads us to the issue If the money accumulated in the joint account remains to be the property of a joint account holder even after his/her death. It is true that the right to appropriate any property belonging to a person who is deceased cannot be decided in a summary proceeding. But the point has been raised in relation to the right of a consumer. Complaint is that the Bank in course of its dealing with a customer has acted illegally in not honouring the contractual term. Had it been a dispute concerning the right to appropriate the money of the deceased among the father and his children certainly it would have been outside the arena of a Consumer Forum. There cannot be any doubt that a fixed deposit or a savings bank deposit held jointly and payable to "either or survivor" is payable to the survivor when one of the joint account holders expires. The intervention by the children of the deceased in the matter is fortuitous. Suppose if the children did not raise any object tion to the payment of the money to the father, would the bank nevertheless insist for a succession certificate? It may be noted that the ground for demanding a succession certificate would still be there. Coming now to the necessity of a succession certificate, it may be noted that a succession certificate can be granted to an heir of the deceased on application to realise any "debt or security" which was payable to the deceased. So far as the Bank is concerned, was any debt payable to the deceased from the Bank? If so, a succession certificate would be necessary for the payment of the mature value of the joint account to the husband even if there were no children. Having regard to the contractual obligation for payment of the amount to the survivor, this seems to be an absurd proposition.

IT may also be noted in this connection that the grant of a succession certificate to a person also does not conclusively decide his right to a debt or security (vide the provisions of Sections 373 and 375 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925) although it is conclusive as against the persons owing such debt or liable on such security. A succession certificate may be demanded from a person who claims to be entitled to a debt due to the deceased as his heir. Here the appellant is not claiming any debt due to the deceased as her heir. Hence there arises no question of demanding any succession certificate from the appellant. The demand by the Bank in this regard is unreasonable and not lawful.

AS regards the issue of duplicate copies of the Fixed Deposit Receipt, the Bank should demand the originals from the persons in whose custody the same are at present. It is an idle claim to produce a document in original when the original is knowingly in another person''s custody. Fixed deposit documents are valuable documents and misappropriation of the same by any person other than the owner thereof is a criminal offence. If the documents are not produced inspite of notice the Bank may take other evidence as may be necessary for identification of the claimant and shall take a decision under intimation to the persons who claim to be in possession of the same. On the basis of the legal position analysed above we hold that the appellant as the "survivor" of the joint account holders is entitled to receive the money against those accounts. We, however, make it clear that we are not deciding the title of the money deposited in those accounts and if any heir of the deceased thinks that he or she has any legal claim over the money he/she may agitate his/her claim before a competent Civil Court.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order dated 30.11.93 passed in C.D.F. Case No. 128/93 is hereby set aside. The complainant''s case before the Calcutta District Forum is allowed to the extent discussed above. There will be no order for costs either in the lower Court or in this appeal. Appeal allowed. __________________