2001 (2) TMI 966 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over nominee status and entitlement to maturity amount.
2. Allegation of deficiency in service by the bank.
3. Appeal against the District Consumer Forum's order.

Issue 1: Dispute over nominee status and entitlement to maturity amount:
The case involved an appeal against a District Consumer Forum's judgment regarding the entitlement to a maturity amount deposited in a National Savings Scheme account. The deceased account holder had made nominees, but a dispute arose as the nomination was not noted on the passbook. The complainants sought the return of the amount along with interest and compensation. The opposite party contended that the complainant was not a consumer and that the nomination was not recorded on the passbook, thus no payment could be made based on the nomination.

Issue 2: Allegation of deficiency in service by the bank:
Both parties presented evidence before the District Consumer Forum. The Forum directed the opposite parties to pay the maturity amount along with interest and granted compensation and costs. The appeal challenged this decision, arguing that a succession certificate was required due to the absence of nomination in the passbook. However, it was noted that the nomination was made in the form but not recorded on the passbook due to an oversight by the bank clerk. The court emphasized that the complainants should not suffer for the clerk's mistake and held the bank responsible for the lost nomination form, deeming it a deficiency in service.

Issue 3: Appeal against the District Consumer Forum's order:
During the appeal hearing, the appellant's counsel reiterated the need for a succession certificate, while the opposite party's counsel highlighted the oversight in recording the nomination on the passbook. The court upheld the District Forum's decision, emphasizing that the complainants were entitled to the deposited amount as nominees, and the bank's failure to note the nomination did not absolve them of the payment obligation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the District Consumer Forum's judgment and imposing costs on the appellant.

---