1. THE case of the complainant in brief may be stated thus: Complainant''s father late Sri. B. Rudrappa had deposited in the opposite party Bank a
sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- in fixed deposit on 30.8.1992 for a period of 46 days. Unfortunately Rudrappa expired on 25.8.1992. THE complainant
contended that Rudrappa had executed a Will on 16.8.1992 which was registered after his death. THE complainant claims to have been appointed
as Executor under the Will and he approached the Bank for encashing the same on 17.3.1994 in order to make payments to the persons entitled
for the same under the terms of the Will. Though the opposite party Bank requested the complainant to produce affidavits, indemnity bond and
other records, ultimately they sent a letter, dated 3rd August, 1995 stating that they were not in a position to ascertain that the Will is a last and
genuine Will. THE letter further stated that in view of the fact that the claim involves a heavy amount, the complainant was requested to bring a
legal representation from the Court of competent jurisdiction entitling him to receive the amount. THE complainant has, therefore, filed this
complaint before this Commission, for a direction to the opposite party to make full payment of the proceeds of the fixed deposit with up-to-date
interest and costs of this complaint.
2. THE opposite party Bank has filed a detailed objection, inter alia, contending that this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the
genuineness of the Will. It was also contended that according to me Banking procedure when a depositor dies, the claimant generally has to
produce a probate from a competent Civil Court.
During the course of enquiry the complainant examined himself and two witnesses, who are stated to be the attestors of the Will to prove the
genuineness of the Will.
The opposite party Bank examined its General Manager, who has stated that the Bank is not in a position to say that the Will is genuine or not, and
that it is the last Will of the testator.
3. FOLLOWING points would arise for our consideration:
(1) Whether the Bank''s instance of production of legal representation amounts to deficiency of service ? (2) Whether the Consumer Court can
give finding as to the genuineness or validity of the Will? (3) If point No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, whether the complainant has proved the
Will ? (4) What order?
In our view, point No. 2 can be taken first, as it relates to question of jurisdiction of this Commission. The ultimate decision of this case depends on
this finding.
4. SRI. B.P. Jayakar, learned Advocate for the complainant contended that the opposite party Bank has not seriously disputed the genuineness of
the Will. This has been opposed by the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party Bank. It is clearly stated by him that they are not
admitting the genuineness of the Will, they are not in a position to say whether that was his last Will or whether that testator had executed the Will
in a sound state of mind.
The complainant has examined himself and other 2 persons as attestors to the Will. Will is a solemn document. Heavy responsibility is cast on the
Courts while giving a finding on the genuineness of the Will. The party must satisfy the conscience of the Court that the Will profounded is the last
Will of a free and capable testator. It must also be proved in accordance with law.
We do not want to comment on the evidence placed by the complainant in this regard. All that we say is that we do not wish to go into that aspect
at all. It is the province of the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction but not of a Consumer Court. Without holding that the Will is genuine, this
Commission cannot give a direction to the opposite party Bank to pay the amount. This Commission invested with the summary power cannot go
deep into the appreciation of evidence without which the genuineness of the Will cannot be given.
5. THE learned Counsel for the opposite party Bank relying on Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act contends that this Commission has no
jurisdiction to make an order as to the payment of the amounts in question.
6. WE do not want to enter into this controversy. It is for the complainant to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Hence we answer
Point No. 2 accordingly.
In view of our finding on Point No. 2, Point No. 3 will not arise. Point No. 1:
It is not in dispute that the complainant is not a nominee for the fixed deposit in question. His claim is only under the Will. Of course, he is also a
heir being a son of the deceased. But the Bank in its letter dated 3.8.1995 states thus:
Please refer to your captioned application dated 30th January, 1995 on the captioned subject. Our Bank has examined your application and is of
the view that we are not in a position to ascertain that the Will of the deceased is the last and genuine Will. In view of this fact and also the fact that
claim involves a heavy amount, you are requested to bring a legal representation from a Court of competent jurisdiction entitling you to receive the
amount in question to enable us to pay the amounts to you.
7. MR. Jayakar, learned Advocate for the complainant contends that the Bank need not have collected the documents, affidavits, indemnity bonds
and other papers from the complainant and then issued a letter dated 3.8.1995. It may be that the Bank has to take a decision whenever a claim is
made and it is normal for the Bank to seek necessary papers to substantiate their claim. If the Bank has taken a decision as stated in their letter
dated 3.8.1995 after collecting the documents, we cannot term the stand of the Bank as deficiency in service. It is not open to the complainant to
say that the Bank is bound to accept his claim on the basis of the documents collected.
We, therefore, hold that the Bank''s insistence of production of legal representation does not amount to deficiency of service.
8. IN the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Complaint dismissed.
