AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
- IN this complaint, the complainants, 13 in number, have sought a direction to the Opposite Party Bank to disburse the amounts lying in deposit in the name of the late Smt. B.N. Vedamma, to all the beneficiaries of her Will dated 30.11.1989.
ONE Smt. B.N. Vedamma, wife of late B. Narayan had executed a registered Will dated 30-11-1989 and under the said Will she had bequeathed all her assets to her kith and kin. The late Smt. B.N. Vedamma expired on 19-12-1989. Smt. B.N. Vedamma, it is not disputed, had deposited a sum of Rs 1,85,000/- by way of three fixed deposits in the Opposite Party-bank. The beneficiaries shown in the said Will were 24 in number. The Complainants sought a direction to the Bank of disburse the said F.D. amount in favour of all the beneficiaries under the said Will. The complainants filed the claim petition seeking the said relief when the O.P.- Bank asked them to produce the succession certificate regarding the assets of late Smt. Vedamma. The Opposite Party Bank filed its version and admitted the fact of deposit of a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- made by the late Smt. Vedamma. If further averred that late Smt. Vedamma had borrowed a sum Rs. 30,000/- from the Opposite Party-Bank against her fixed deposit amount The said fixed deposit amount was renewed till 23-8-1992.
The Opposite Party-Bank admitted the fact that some of the complainants, alleged to be the some of the beneficiaries under the said Will, had approached the Opposite Party-Bank seeking disbursement of the amount as per the Will, but the Bank had asked the complainants to produce the succession certificate.
THE Opposite Patty-Bank further averred that the Will disclosed as many as 24 beneficiaries; all the said beneficiaries had neither approached the O.P.-Bank nor have filed the complaint. It further averred that the complainants had given a copy of the Will/the authenticity of which, it was not within the jurisdiction of the Opposite Party-Bank to decide. So they had requested the complainants to secure and produce a succession certificate from the Competent Court in proof of execution of the Will and the beneficiaries thereunder.
THE Opposite Party-Bank on the basis of these averments submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part and, therefore, the complaint was untenable. The complaint, by 13 complainants, was filed on 23-3-1993. Thereafter while proceedings were pending, on 22-6-1993 six more persons filed an application to implead them as complainants. The Opposite Party-Bank filed its objections to the said application and averred that they were not entitled to be impleaded as additional complainants. During enquiry, one of the complainants that is complainant No. 1, filed the affidavit. The complainants also produced a xerox copy of the Will alleged to have been executed by the late Smt. Vedamma and also xerox copies of the correspondence between the complainants and the Opposite Party-Bank.
WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the records.
IT is not disputed mat .the late Smt. Vedamma had made three deposits with the O.P. - Bank for a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/-. IT is also not disputed that in those 3 F.Ds she had not nominated any one as her nominee to collect the amount. The complainants claimed the said F.D. amount of the late Smt. Vedamma under a Will alleged to have been executed by her. The Will came to be executed on 30-11-1989. It is not disputed that late M/s. Vedamma expired on 19-12-1989, The averments in the Will showed 24 persons as the beneficiaries.
The bank has also averred that only few of the beneficiaries had approached the bank claiming disbursement of the said F.D. amount as per the direction in the Will.
THE Bank, having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case directed the beneficiaries who had approached them to establish the authenticity of the Will before a Competent Court of law and secure a succession certificate. THEy further averred that they would abide by the direction under the said succession certificate and would make the payment as per the directions thereunder. Having regard to these facts we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party-Bank in asking the complainants to produce a succession certificate, when mere was no mention of any nominee to collect the money under those fixed deposits, while late Smt Vedamma had deposited the amounts. Having regard to these facts we do not see any merit in the complaint and we also do not find substance in the application for impleading made by 6 persons. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Complaint dismissed.