Bank delays release of deceased wife’s savings to elderly man; consumer commission orders Rs 15,000 payout
NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Kerala has directed Bank of India to pay Rs 10,000 compensation and Rs 5,000 litigation costs to an elderly man after finding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in the delayed release of his deceased wife’s savings. The order was passed on August 31, 2026.Why did the man approach the consumer commission?According to the commission order, the complainant’s wife died on September 2, 2022, leaving Rs 62,541 in her savings account with Bank of India’s Kuruppampady branch. Their son, who was the nominee, had also died.The complainant approached the bank seeking release of the money and produced the relationship certificate and death certificates. The bank insisted on a legal-heirs certificate, which he obtained on August 5, 2023. He alleged that payment was still deferred on the ground that legal opinion was required.He then sent a representation to the bank’s zonal office on August 18, 2023. The branch asked him to complete further documentation on August 25 and the amount was eventually credited on September 4, 2023.The complainant alleged that he had to make repeated visits and suffered financial hardship and mental agony. He sought Rs 10,000 compensation and other reliefs.The bank denied any delay or deficiency and said the complainant had initially submitted an unsigned application without the required legal-heirship certificate or Certificate of Administration. It said the Certificate of Administration was produced on August 16, 2023 and complete documents were furnished on September 1, after which Rs 62,682 was transferred to his account the same day.The bank also argued that settlement of a deceased depositor’s account did not make the complainant a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act as it involved statutory verification of succession and legal heirs.What did the commission observe?The bench comprising president D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. said the bank was justified in verifying the lawful claimant because the nominee had died. But it said such verification could not become unnecessarily burdensome.“At the same time, legitimate verification cannot become a justification for an opaque, undocumented or unnecessarily burdensome procedure. A bank dealing with the legal heirs of a deceased customer has a corresponding obligation to communicate the requirements clearly, furnish the prescribed forms, identify deficiencies promptly and facilitate completion of the claim within a reasonable period,” the bench noted.The commission also noted that the bank’s main defence was that the complainant had submitted an unsigned application in May 2023. However, the bank did not produce the alleged application, an acknowledgement, inward register entry or any written communication asking him to sign it.The bench said the bank had failed to prove that the alleged unsigned application caused the delay.“A pleading is not evidence merely because it contains a factual assertion. Where a party relies upon the existence and contents of a particular document, and that document is naturally within its possession, its unexplained non-production assumes evidentiary significance,” the commission said.The commission also considered the complainant’s age and his inability to understand English. It said banks must provide meaningful access to their services and explain procedural requirements in a language understood by customers where necessary.The bench referred to Reserve Bank of India directions on simplified procedures for settling claims of deceased depositors and said the bank had failed to establish what documents and formalities were explained to the complainant when he first approached the branch.The commission further found that the complainant had escalated his grievance to the zonal office but the bank had not produced any communication showing that an effective response was given.“Such failure to address the grievance or even communicate a response amounts to a clear deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party and forms an integral part of the unfair trade practice established against the opposite parties,” it further added.The commission held that the bank’s deficient handling caused avoidable inconvenience, hardship and mental agony, even though the principal amount was eventually released.It partly allowed the complaint and directed the bank to pay Rs 10,000 compensation and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. It also directed the bank to ensure that claim forms, checklists and procedural requirements for deceased-depositor claims are supplied and clearly explained in the concerned regional language, wherever applicable.The amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of the order, failing which they will carry 9 percent annual interest from the date of filing of the complaint.
