In this post we will discuss about Opening Bank Locker Consumer Case wherein The District Consumer forum took notice that it was admitted by the opposite party that deceased Sh. MR Bansal have bank locker in his name and from copy of death certificate it was proved on the file that said Mangat Rai Bansal died on 31.1.2019. Further, from the copy of will dated 3.7.2017 it is proved on the file that deceased Mangat Rai Bansal during his lifetime made a will in favour of his grandson Keshav Bansal and give him all the rights to use his property. Accordingly, it was settled that the complainant is fully authorized to operate the locker and locker account of his grandfather Mangat Rai Bansal.
Complainant to seek direction to record the name of the complainant as holder of the locker in the Respondent Bank
The present summary will cover and give an overview of the case KESHAV BANSAL V. STATEBANK OF INDIA before District Consumer Dispute Forum and it will give you a brief yet precise outline regarding all the major facts and issues involved in this particular case.
The Main subject matter of the case is that the Complainant has inherited all the movable and immovable property of his grandfather through a registered will.
Grandfather of the complainant Sh. MR Bansal was holding Bank Locker with the opposite bank and after his demise, his grandson/Complainant being the legal heir wanted the bank to grant him the control of his grandfather’s locker & locker account.
District Consumer Disputes Forum
KESHAV BANSAL V. STATE BANK OF INDIA
- The complainant are that the grandfather of the complainant Sh. MR Bansal was holding Bank Locker bearing No. 61/1 Locker Account No. 113 with the opposite party Bank. He used to pay the locker rent to the bank and being beneficiary of the services availed by Sh. MR Bansal and being ready to pay the rent of locker for the period same is pending the complainant is consumer of the opposite party.
ALSO READ- AMITABHA DASGUPTA VERSUS UNITED BANK OF INDIA & ORS
- It is further alleged that the complainant inherited the movable and immovable property owned by Sh. MR Bansal on the basis of registered will bearing No. 117 dated 3.7.2017 after his death. Further, after the death of Sh. MR Bansal on 31.1.2019 the will was seen by all the family members and memorandum of settlement was executed between the members to reduce the family settlement between the members of the family in writing which was got attested from Sh. Ashok Kumar Singla who duly entered the same in his register at Sr. No. 875 Page No. 124 dated 18.4.2019.
- It is further alleged that the complainant submitted a written request along with death certificate and copy of the will to the bank vide registered letter dated 7.9.2019 for incorporation his name as holder of the bank locker. The complainant also offered to complete any other formality of the bank in accordance with law for this purpose. But the bank neither incorporated the name of the complainant in the bank records as holder of the locker as cited above nor has intimated any other formality to be completed by the complainant despite lapse of considerable time. The complainant got served a legal notice upon the opposite party but the bank refused to enter the name of the complainant in the bank records as holder of the locker on the ground that the complainant should either provide succession certificate or probate of the will.
ALSO READ- SUCCESSION CASE NOT FOR BANK LOCKERS -HIGH COURT DELHI
- The bank also informed that Seema Gar daughter of MR Bansal has objected to opening of locker in her absence but the objection is untenable in the absence of any law or order of competent authority in view of the registered will and memorandum of settlement in favour of the complainant. The father of the complainant being natural guardian submitted a request to the opposite party bank to record the name of the complainant as holder of the locker and specifically submitted that the locker will be operated by the complainant on attaining becoming adult i.e. after attaining the age of 18 years and also undertaken that father of the complainant being natural guardian will pay the charges of the locker. The opposite party bank vide letter dated 13.11.2019 refused to do the needful and reiterated its demand of succession certificate, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite party may be directed to record the name of the complainant as holder of the locker under guardianship of his father.
- To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension and harassment.
- To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
- Any other relief to the Forum deem fit.
ALSO READ- HOW TO PROBATE A WILL IN CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI
Issues Involved
- Is the Bank involved in unfair trade practice and unnecessarily refusing to give the control of the locker/locker account to the Complainant even when he is the rightful heir to his grandfather’s property as stated in the will.
- Is this Complainant maintainable as it is alleged by the opposite party that the Complainant is a minor and not properly impleaded by his guardian.
- Does the Bank/ opposite party requires the documents for handing over locker account, such as decree of declaration or succession certificate or probate of will when a will exists.
ALSO READ- SAFE DEPOSIT LOCKER: WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS NO NOMINATION?
Judgement on the settled law
- The Hon’ble Punjab High Court in case titled Ram Chand Versus Sardara Singh and another’s reported in 1962 AIR (Punjab)-382 held as under.-
Succession Act, 1925, Sections 57 and 213- Probate of a will executed in the Punjab- Section
213 (1) requiring probate do not apply to wills made outside Bengal and the local original jurisdictional limit of the High Courts at Madras and Bombay except where such wills relate to immovable property situate within those territories. No probate, therefore, is necessary in order to set up a claim regarding property either movable or immovable on the basis of a will executed in the Punjab and not relating to property situated in the territories mentioned in Section 57 (a) of the said Act.
- The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”), on November 14th, 2019 in Oswal Greentech v Mr. Pankaj Oswal and Ors
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi had held that nomination does not amount to beneficial ownership to an asset and the nominee holds the asset for and on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased.
It is the legal heir who is the ultimate, rightful owner of the property of a deceased individual and a nominee (pursuant to a nomination given by the deceased during his / her lifetime) would act only as a trustee on behalf of the rightful legal heir(s), and hold such property until the matter of succession or inheritance is decided and implemented
ALSO READ- SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE FROM MOHALI DISTRICT COURT
Findings of the Forum
- The District Consumer forum took notice that It was admitted by the opposite party that deceased Sh. MR Bansal have bank locker bearing No. 61/1 and Locker Account No. 113 in his name and from copy of death certificate it was proved on the file that said Mangat Rai Bansal died on 31.1.2019. Further, from the copy of will dated 3.7.2017 it is proved on the file that deceased Mangat Rai Bansal during his lifetime made a will in favour of his grandson Keshav Bansal and give him all the rights to use his property. This will was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar Barnala and no person raised any objection against this will.
Accordingly, it was settled that Bansal is fully authorized to operate the locker and locker account of his grandfather Mangat Rai Bansal.
ALSO READ- 25 THINGS THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT WILL REGISTRATION
- It was objected by the opposite party that the complainant is a minor but he is not properly impleaded through his guardian.
The Complainant with an amendment in head note attached copies of Aadhaar Card and Secondary School Examination certificate of Keshav Bansal where DOB was mentioned as 17.5.2002 which means that from 17.5.2020 he attained the age of majority, Therefore this Authority allowed the application.
ALSO READ- WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED ON DEATH OF A LOCKER HIRER?
- The main argument presented by the Opposite Party for not giving the possession/ownership of the locker and account to the Complainant is that if the complainant had any registered will in his favour, then he can approach to the Civil Courts to get a decree of declaration or succession certificate or probate of will in his favour to operate the locker in question but the complainant failed to submit any succession certificate or civil declaration in his favour with the opposite party so he cannot operate the locker or locker account of his grandfather Mangat Rai Bansal.
The District Consumer forum no probate of will was necessary to claim a property where there is a registered will in his/her favour. Accordingly, in the present as there was a registered will in favour of the complainant, so there was no need of any succession certificate or decree of declaration or probate of will to the complainant to operate the locker and locker account of his grandfather.
ALSO READ- DRAFT CIRCULAR ON SAFE DEPOSIT LOCKERS
Conclusion
The main reason why the bank was not allowing the opposite party to control the locker and locker account of their grandfather that they were not in a position to allow any person or the complainant to operate the said alleged locker/locker account without a decree of declaration or succession certificate or probate of will.
This Consumer forum after reading the facts and afterlooking at the records held that deceased Mangat Rai Bansal during his lifetime made a will in favour of his grandson Keshav Bansal and give him all the rights to use his property. This will was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar Barnala on the same day i.e. 3.7.2017 in the presence of Harnek Singh Lambardar and Jaswant Rai.
Further, no person raised any objection against this will, therefore Seema gar who alleged in her written request that without her consent and consent of other legal heirs of deceased MR Bansal permission may not be granted to anyone to operate the account as well as locker of the deceased MR Bansal without her permission had no merit as the will was genuine and will enforce whether she agrees with it or not.
ALSO READ- HOW NOMINEE CAN ACCESS SAFE DEPOSIT LOCKER IN BANK
The Bank did not indulged in unfair trade practices as In case the individual who has died had a “Will”, then a Probate may be required depending on the facts of the case. While, for an individual who has died intestate (without a Will), either a Succession Certificate or a Legal Heir Certificate may be required depending on the type of assets the individual had – for property a Succession Certificate is required, while if the individual had only financial assets then Legal Heir certificate may be sufficient. Therefore they were also right to ask for above stated documents and it was their duty to ask for thosedocument which was required by them while following the already laid down principles and procedures.
This post was written by Pushkar Yadav
For case specific advice on matters, one may contact top/best/expert succession/legal heir/ consumer court lawyers in Chandigarh, Panchkula, Mohali, Zirakpur, Dera Bassi, Kharar
For more info Contact 99888-17966.
This post covers topics related to bank locker rules in case of death in India, succession certificate for bank locke,r bank locker rules and regulations, deceased locker claim ,letter of administration for bank locker deceased locker claim, sbi deceased locker claim without nomination, rbi master circular on safe deposit lockers.
