SHRI JANARDAN BHUWANIA vs SHRI NARAYAN PRASAD AGARWAL

Complainants-Narayan Prasad Agarwal and Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal, filed a case of deficiency against State Bank of India on the ground, that bank had refused them to withdraw the amount lying in Public Provident Fund Account (short as, ''P.P.F. A/c'') of Late Ginidevi Agrawal.

Case of complainants is, that late Ginidevi Agrawal had a P.P.F. A/c bearing No. OIP-00900016 with State Bank of India wherein, they were the joint nominees. After death of Ginidevi Aggarwal on 16.04.2005, complainants prayed for withdrawal of the amount lying in that P.P.F. A/c. However, payment was held up as elder brother of the complainants, Sh. Janardan Bhuwania (added subsequently as Opposite Party No.3 before the District Forum) claimed the amount as sole nominee of said P.P.F. A/c.

State Bank of India filed its written version before the District Forum and also filed a petition stating therein, that the nominee, Janardan Bhuwania is a necessary party in this case and he be added as a party for the just decision of the case.

Accordingly, objection was called for from the parties. Thereafter, District Forum vide order dated 27.09.2005 held that said Janardan Bhuwania be added as Opposite Party No.3, to adjudicate the dispute in this case.

Complainants challenged that order of District Forum before the State Commission. The State Commission (in Revision Petition No.52/2005) upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the revision.

State Bank of India in their written version admitted, that late Ginidevi Agrawal had a P.P.F. A/c with them. Initially, complainants were the nominees, but on 15.04.2005 Smt. Ginidevi Agrawal sent a cancellation of nomination in respect of the complainants in Form No. F, which was received by the Bank (OP No.1) on 19.4.2005, wherein eldest son of Ginidevi Agrawal, named Janardhan Bhuwania was made nominee, by cancelling the complainants'' nomination. Thus, in view of the claims and dispute between the complainants and Janardan Bhuwania, the subsequent nominee, State Bank of India could not proceed with the payment to the parties and told the parties to get an order from the proper court regarding payment. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Bank. The bank will abide by the decision of the forum.

Janardan Bhuwania/Opposite Party No.3 in his written version admitted, that his mother late Ginidevi Agrawal had a P.P.F. A/c with State Bank of India. He also stated that they are having a joint family and complainants being the brothers, stay with him and all are having joint mess and living together. It is stated, that her mother late Ginidevi Agrawal on 15.4.2005, had nominated him for her P.P.F. A/c lying with State Bank of India in presence of witness. Thereafter, he had sent the said nomination form in Form No. F by registered Post to State Bank of India. Thus, he is the sole nominee of the P.P.F. A/c of her mother and is entitled to receive the entire amount with interest.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jharsuguda (for short, ''District Forum) vide order dated 24.01.2007 allowed the complaint and passed following directions; "In result, we direct that OP No.1 the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Jharsuguda Branch, Jharsuguda, Orissa to pay a sum of Rs.9,19,058.42 paise (Nine lakh nineteen thousand fifty eight and forty two paise) only with upto date interest of the Public Provident Fund Account bearing No.OIP-00900016 (previous A/c. No.117) of the late Ginidevi Agrawal to OP No.3, Janardan Bhuwania, within 30 days of this order, failing which interest @ 9% will be charged."

Being aggrieved, Complainants filed F.A. No.88/2007, before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack (for short, ''State Commission) which vide impugned order dated 31.01.2007, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint of the complainants.

Now, complainants have preferred (Revision Petition No.1522/2007) whereas Shri Janardan Bhuwania, has filed (Revision Petition No.1433/2007) challenging the impugned order.

Since, both revision petitions arise from the common impugned order passed by the State Commission, these are being disposed of by this single order.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainants-Narayan Prasad Agarwal and Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, that there was no lawful and genuine change of nomination in the PPF A/c of late Ginidevi Aggarwal in compliance of the statutory provision of PPF A/c and PPF Scheme, 1968. It is further submitted, that complainants were appointed as joint nominees in the PPF A/c by late Ginidevi Aggarwal on 17.03.1990, when the said account was opened and said nomination continued unchallenged till 16.04.2005. Thus, their nomination was much in force till the time of death of account holder. Thus, complainants being the nominees are entitled to the amount lying in the PPF A/c of their late mother. In support, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of Supreme Court, Dr. J.J. Merchant and others Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 635.

On the other hand it is submitted by learned counsel for Janardan Bhuwania, that nomination in favour of Janardan Bhuwania was made by late Ginidevi Aggarwal during her life time and she was well within her right to change the nomination. Accordingly, order passed by State Commission is not sustainable.

Whereas, it is contended by learned counsel for State Bank of India, that in view of the dispute having arisen between the complainants (who were the earlier nominees) and Janardan Bhuwania (the subsequent nominee), it is not within the domain of State Bank of India to decide who is actual nominee. For that purpose, which of the nominee is entitled to have right over to claim of late Ginidevi Aggarwal, is for the proper court to decide.

The State Commission, while dismissing the appeal of complainants in its impugned order observed; "3. Whether the appellants or the respondent no.3 are the real nominees of Ginidevi Agrawal is a question to be decided by civil court. The Consumer Forum is not competent to deal with such issue. The filing of the complaint by the appellants is misconceived. 4. We accordingly set aside the impugned order, dismiss the complaint filed by the appellants. This appeal is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission."

It is an admitted fact, that initially both complainants were the nominees in respect of PPF A/c in question. It is also not in dispute, that during her life time Smt. Ginidevi Aggagwal has changed her nomination and made Mr. Janardan Bhuwania as her nominee.

It may be pertinent to note that nomination in favour of Mr. Janardan Bhuwania was made on or about 15.04.2005 whereas Smt. Ginidevi Aggarwal has died on the very next day, that is on 16.04.2005. Since, there is a dispute as to which of the nominees are entitled to receive the amount lying in the PPF A/c, it is not within the domain of State Bank of India, to decide this issue. As rightly observed by the State Commission, whether complainants or Janardan Bhuwania are the real nominees of Ginidevi Agarwal, is a question which is to be decided by the Civil Court and Consumer Forum is not competent to decide such issue.

Lastly, none of the nominees have mentioned at all that besides them, whether there are any other Legal Heirs of Late Ginidevi Aggarwal or not. All such questions can be decided by Civil Court only.

Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. I fully agree with the reasonings given by the State Commission. Hence, there is no merit in above present revision petitions, the same are hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.