MANAGER (NRI) STATE BANK OF INDIA vs NAGINI S.RAM GOVINDRAJAN

IN this appeal the State Bank of INdia vide order dated 9.3.2000 of the District Forum, Sundargarh-II, Rourkela has been directed to pay to the complainant the principal amount of 4500 U.S. Dollars with 12 percent interest along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. It is disputed that deceased Murari Ramswami Mohan Ram who was an NRI and was staying outside INdia had purchased NRI bonds worth 4500 US dollars which, equivalent to Rs. 3,00,000/- in the INdian currency. He died on 21.6.1997 before the maturity of the bonds. The complainants claimed to be the beneficiaries of the said deceased under a registered ''Will'' and demanded that the Bank should pay the amount to them. The Bank refused to discharge its liability without a probate of the Will in favour of the legal heirs. The complainants filed a case before the District Forum. The Forum on going through the respective cases of the parties and materials on record held that the complainants were entitled to receive the amount from the Bank and since this was refused it amounted deficiency of service by the Bank and thus they are liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

WE have heard Mr. Das, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for all the respondents-complainants. WE have perused the judgment and other materials on record. Fact remains that the Will was sought to be probated in the District Judge, Sundargarh. But the District Judge observed that a Will executed within the District of Sundargarh was not required to be probated. Admittedly this has not been challenged in any higher Forum. The District Forum has accepted the case of the complainant. WE find from the version of the SBI filed in the lower Court that no case was pleaded that in fact either this Will is a fake Will or that any other Class-I heir are there who are claiming any right title to the amount. The simple case of the Bank was that there was no satisfactory evidence or materials to the satisfaction of the Bank that they are the persons who are entitled to get the money. It is pressed by Mr. Das that there is absolutely no negligence or lapses on the part of the Bank since the Bank is willing to disburse the amount to the right person, who are entitled to the amount. Having heard the Counsel we do not find anything wrong with the order of the District Forum. However, we have not felt it justified that the Bank should be held responsible for any deficiency of service because of the lapses on their part. They being the Public Authorities are bound to entertain certain doubts for payment unless it is the right person. In such a situation we only set aside that part of the order awarding compensation. So far this Commission is concerned the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,000/- as cost. So far the interest of 12% is concerned, the Bank is directed to pay such interest as it is permissible under law as on the date of issue of the bond upto 5.1.1999. Since Mr. Das is representing the SBI, NRI, Mumbai, we direct the Bank to send the amount to the SBI, Rourkela Main Branch for payment to the complainant within a period of 8 weeks from today. Needless to point out that the complainants are hereby required to also execute indemnity bond in favour of the S.B.I. Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member-I agree. Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member-I agree. Appeal partly allowed.