Bank of India ordered to pay Rs 15,000 to Kerala man after delay in releasing deceased wife's savings

A district consumer commission in Kerala has directed Bank of India to pay Rs 10,000 compensation and Rs 5,000 towards 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's order, the complainant's wife died on September 2, 2022, leaving Rs 62,541 in her savings account at 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 submitted the relationship certificate and death certificates. However, the bank insisted on a legal-heirs certificate, which he obtained on August 5, 2023.

He alleged that the bank continued to defer payment, citing the need for legal opinion. He subsequently 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 to his account on September 4, 2023.

The complainant alleged that he had to make repeated visits to the bank and suffered financial hardship and mental agony. He sought Rs 10,000 in compensation along with other reliefs.

What did Bank of India say?

The bank denied any delay or deficiency in service. It said the complainant had initially submitted an unsigned application without the required legal-heirship certificate or Certificate of Administration.

According to the bank, the Certificate of Administration was produced on August 16, 2023, while the complete documents were furnished on September 1. It said Rs 62,682 was transferred to the complainant's 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 the process involved statutory verification of succession and legal heirs.

What did the consumer 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, particularly because the nominee had died. However, 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 observed.

The commission noted that the bank's primary defence was that the complainant had submitted an unsigned application in May 2023. However, the bank failed to produce the alleged application, an acknowledgement, an inward register entry or any written communication asking him to sign it.

The bench said the bank had failed to establish that the alleged unsigned application had 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.

Commission flags language barrier, documentation issues

The commission also considered the complainant's age and his inability to understand English. It said banks must ensure meaningful access to their services and explain procedural requirements in a language understood by customers, wherever necessary.

Referring to Reserve Bank of India directions on simplified procedures for settling claims of deceased depositors, the commission said the bank had failed to establish what documents and formalities were explained to the complainant when he first approached the branch.

The bench further noted that the complainant had escalated his grievance to the bank's zonal office, but the bank had not produced any communication showing that an effective response had been provided.

"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 added.

What did the commission order?

The commission held that the bank's deficient handling had caused avoidable inconvenience, hardship and mental agony, even though the principal amount was eventually released.

It partly allowed the complaint and directed Bank of India to pay Rs 10,000 in 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 must be paid within 45 days of receipt of the order. If the bank fails to comply, the amounts will carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.