# Awadhesh Singh v. R.B.I., through Reg. Director, Kanpur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 332
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-24
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 2045 of 2020
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/awadhesh-singh-v-r-b-i-through-reg-director-kanpur-ors-47072
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sri Sanjai Singh

Banking Laws
- Customer Protection
Limiting
Liability
of
Customers
in
Unauthorized
Electronic
Banking
Transactions - Clause nos. 5, 6, 9 - On
receipt of report of an unauthorised
transaction from the customer, banks
must take immediate steps to prevent
further unauthorised transactions in the
account - Zero Liability of a Customer - A
customer's entitlement to zero liability
arise where the unauthorised transaction
occurs on account of Contributory fraud/
negligence/ deficiency on the part of the
bank (Para 8)

On 21.02.2019 petitioner shared his OTP (One
Time Password) with stranger - due to sharing
of OTP Rs. 1.00,000/- was withdrawn from the
account of the petitioner - petitioner lodged a
complaint in writing before the bank on
21.02.2019 requesting to freeze his bank
account - Bank could not freeze the Bank
Account which resulted in illegal withdrawal in
four transactions on 22.02.2019 and another in
five transaction on 23.02.2019 - Held - Bank
was to ensure immediate response and to
freeze the Bank Account after the petitioner
reported
unauthorized
transaction
on
6 All. Awadhesh Singh Vs. R.B.I., through Reg. Director, Kanpur & Ors.
333
21.02.2019 - petitioner entitled to zero liability
because the unauthorized transaction was the
result of negligence on the part of the Bank -
bank liable to credit the amount involved in the
unauthorized transaction in petitioner's account
(Para 9, 10, 12)

Allowed. (E-4)

## Text

332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner on the basis of number of
existing licenses being held by the persons
either belonging to the OBC category or
SC/ST category, is totally meritless. The
existing fair price shop licensees are
running their shops from a long period
much prior to the Government Order dated
05.08.2019. The Government Order itself
protects the existing licensees. It provides
that licenses of the existing licensees shall
not be disturbed/cancelled and as and when
a shop fall vacant then it shall be governed
by the reservation policy under the
Government order. For example, if a shop
has been identified in terms of the
Government Order dated 05.08.2019, to be
under unreserved category but presently it
is being held by a person belonging to a
reserved category then if such a shop fall
vacant in future then it shall fall under the
unreserved category. Similarly, if the
license of an existing shop although fall
under the reserved category but presently
license thereof is being held by a person
belonging to unreserved category, then if in
future such a shop fall vacant then its
license shall be settled under the reserved
category. Thus, we do not find any force in
the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner.

11. For all the reasons aforestated we
find that the impugned Clauses of the
Government Order dated 05.08.2019 do not
suffer from any invalidity. The impugned
order dated 13.11.2019 is in terms of the
Government Order. Therefore, it also does
not suffer from any illegality.

12. The writ petition has no merits.
Therefore,
it
is
hereby
dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2021)06ILR A332
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Writ-C No. 2045 of 2020

Awadhesh Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
R.B.I., through Reg. Director, Kanpur &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri Adarsh Singh, Sri Indra Raj Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sanjai Singh

Banking Laws
- Customer Protection
Limiting
Liability
of
Customers
in
Unauthorized
Electronic
Banking
Transactions - Clause nos. 5, 6, 9 - On
receipt of report of an unauthorised
transaction from the customer, banks
must take immediate steps to prevent
further unauthorised transactions in the
account - Zero Liability of a Customer - A
customer's entitlement to zero liability
arise where the unauthorised transaction
occurs on account of Contributory fraud/
negligence/ deficiency on the part of the
bank (Para 8)

On 21.02.2019 petitioner shared his OTP (One
Time Password) with stranger - due to sharing
of OTP Rs. 1.00,000/- was withdrawn from the
account of the petitioner - petitioner lodged a
complaint in writing before the bank on
21.02.2019 requesting to freeze his bank
account - Bank could not freeze the Bank
Account which resulted in illegal withdrawal in
four transactions on 22.02.2019 and another in
five transaction on 23.02.2019 - Held - Bank
was to ensure immediate response and to
freeze the Bank Account after the petitioner
reported
unauthorized
transaction
on
6 All. Awadhesh Singh Vs. R.B.I., through Reg. Director, Kanpur & Ors.
333
21.02.2019 - petitioner entitled to zero liability
because the unauthorized transaction was the
result of negligence on the part of the Bank -
bank liable to credit the amount involved in the
unauthorized transaction in petitioner's account
(Para 9, 10, 12)

Allowed. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J. & Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. With the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties, this writ petition has
been finally heard, without calling for
counter affidavit.

2. Heard Shri Adarsh Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay
Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.
2, the Punjab National Bank, Subedar Ganj,
Prayagraj.

3. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following reliefs:-

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no. 1 Reserve Bank of India,
83/142
M.G.
Road,
Kanpur-208001
through its Regional Director, Kanpur and
respondent no. 3 Complaint and Human
Resource Development Section, Regional
Office, Allahabad through its Manager
(Banking Ombudsman) to consider the
grievance of the petitioner and resolve the
same, within stipulated period as may be
fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no. 2-Punjab National Bank,
Subedar Ganj Allahabad Uttar Pradesh
211012 through its Branch Manager to
credit the amount of Rs. 3 lacs. in the
account no. 4763000400000990 of Punjab
National Bank, Subedar Ganj Allahabad,
Uttar Pradesh 211012 of the petitioner
along with interest at the bank rate within
stipulated time as may be fixed by the
Hon'ble Court."

4. In paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of
the writ petition, the petitioner has stated as
under:-

"4. That it is pertinent to mention
before
this
Hon'ble
Court
that
the
petitioner was having a balance of amount
of Rs. 4,12,815/- to his credit in the
aforesaid bank account maintained with the
respondent no. 2 as on 21.02.2019,
however, the evening of 21.02.2019 turned
into a nightmare for the petitioner when he
received a call on his Mobile NO
9794866805 from Mobile No 8013571289
and the person calling introduced himself
as Finance and Account Officer in the
Divisional Railway Manager and told the
petitioner that he needed an OTP which
will be notified in his mobile number for
crediting the interest toward the provident
fund of the petitioner, falling prey to the
aforesaid request the petitioner informed
the OTP which came on his mobile number
shortly thereafter, and shockingly an
amount of Rs. 20000 was immediately
debited from the aforesaid account of the
petitioner at 6.31 p.m. followed by 4 more
more debit transactions of Rs. 20000/- each
happened between 6.31 to 6.34 p.m.
debiting the total amount of Rs. 1 lakh from
the aforesaid account of the petitioner,
realizing
the
same
the
petitioner
immediately contacted the toll free number
1801802223 of the bank and requested it to
seize/close the account of the petitioner and
lodged complaints with regard to the last 5
unauthorized transaction, which is also
evident by the perusal of the statement of
messages received on the mobile phone of
the petitioner in the intervening period. A
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
true copy of statement of SMS received on
the mobile phone of the petitioner on
21.02.2019 are being filed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE NO. 1 to this writ
petition.

5. That the petitioner also on the very
next date i.e. 22.02.2019 filed a complaint
before
the
Branch
Manager
Punjab
National Bank Subedar Ganj, Allahabad
and
informed
him
about
the
fraud
committed in his bank account and
requested him to immediately cease the
bank account and initiate refund of the
amount of Rs. 1 lakh fraudently debited
from his bank account, in addition to the
aforesaid, the petitioner also made a
complaint before the Station House Officer,
Dhumanganj, Prayagraj on 22.02.2019 for
lodging an First Information Report, in
pursuance to which an First Information
Report, was also lodged being case crime
no. 0161 of 2019 under Sections 419 and
420 I.P.C., Police Station Dhumanganjj,
Allahabad. A true copy of the application
dated 22.02.2019 submitted before the
Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank
Subedar Ganj, Allahabad and copy of the
application dated 22.02.2019 submitted
before the Station House Officer, Police
Station Dhoomanganj and Copy of First
Information Report are being filed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE NO. 2 to this
writ petition.

6.That
inspite
of
the
aforesaid
complaint made by the petitioner before the
Branch Manager of the aforesaid bank, it
appears that no action/steps whatsoever
was taken by any of the authorities of the
bank for ceasing the bank account of the
petitioner and initiating refund of Rs. 1
lakh fraudulently debited from his account
on 21.02.2019 and as a result of which five
more transactions took place on the eve of
22.02.2019 between 6.37 p.m. to 6.40 p.m.
and shockingly Rs. 1 lakh more was
fraudulently debited from the bank account
of the petitioner in five equal amounts of
Rs. 20000/- each and further Rs. 1 lakh
more was fraudulently debited from his
bank account on 23.02.2019 at about same
time in the evening, thereby causing a loss
of Rs. 3 lakhs to the petitioner on account
of negligence of the Branch Manager. A
true copy of statement of SMS received on
22.02.2019 and 23.02.2019 and complaint
made
by
the
petitioner
and
the
acknowledgement of complaint made by the
petitioner and a copy of the Bank Statement
of the petitioner w.e.f. 21.02.2019 till
23.02.2019 are being filed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE No. 3 to this writ
petition.

7. That petitioner being aggrieved
against the suspicious conduct of the Bank
Authorities as the non-cessation of the bank
account of the petitioner even after his
repeated request leading to further loss of
Rs. 2 lakhs demonstrated collusion between
the bank authorities and the fraudulent
persons submitted another application
dated 25.02.2019 before Station House
Officer
Dhumanganj,
Prayagraj
for
lodging an First Information Report
against the Bank authorities. A true copy of
letter dated 25.02.2019 is being filed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.
4 to this writ petition."

5. The aforequoted paragraph nos. 4,
5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition have been
replied in paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the
counter affidavit dated 29.01.2021 filed by
the respondent nos. 2 and 3 which has been
quoted below:-

"3. That the contents of paragraph no.
4 of the writ petition are matter of record.
However, it is respectfully submitted that
the petitioner being educated person
shared his OTP (One Time Password) with
6 All. Awadhesh Singh Vs. R.B.I., through Reg. Director, Kanpur & Ors.
335
stranger person who called the petitioner
on his mobile number. Due to the sharing
of the OTP (One Time Password) with
stranger
person,
Rs.
1.00,000/-
was
withdrawn from the account of the
petitioner.

4. That the contents of paragraph no.
5 of the writ petition are matter of record,
which can be verified from the original.

5. That, the contents of paragraph nos.
6 and 7 of the writ petition is not correct as
stated therein. In reply it is respectfully
submitted before this Hon'ble Court that
due to the system error or network/server
error the account of the petitioner was not
freeze by the branch office of the bank on
same day. It is further respectfully
submitted before this Hon'ble Court that
the branch has taken the action and send
the request for freezing the account of the
petitioner but it seems due to the system
error or network/server error the account
of the petitioner was not freeze. The
account of the petitioner was freeze on
23.02.2019."

6. From perusal of the pleadings as
quoted above, it is clear that the respondent
nos. 1, 2 and 3 have admitted the following
facts:-

I - After a sum of Rs. 1 lacs in four
transactions of Rs. 20,000/- each and one
transaction of Rs. 19,900/- were illegaly
withdrawn from the petitioner's salary bank
account No. 4763000400000990 in Punjab
National Bank Subedar Ganj, Prayagraj
between 6.31 p.m, to 6.34 on i.e.
21.02.2019 with S.R. Nos. A096936814,
A096936863, A096936901, A096936942
and A096936979.

II - The petitioner again lodged a
complaint in writing and presented it before
the respondent no. 2 on 21.02.2019
requesting to freeze his Bank Account. In
his written complaint he has referred to his
above mentioned complaint made on
tollfree number of the Bank.

III - The petitioner again made a
complaint on the same day i.e. 21.02.2019
which he lodged on the toll free number of
the Bank.

IV - The petitioner also lodged the
first information report number 0161 of
2019 under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C.
P.S. Dhoomanganj, District-Prayagraj at
9.31 p.m.

V - The respondent no. 2 Bank was
negligent to freeze the Salary Bank
Account of the petitioner which fact is
evident from the averments made in
paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit.

VI - The respondent no. 2 Bank has
admitted in paragraph no. 5 of the counter
affidavit that "due to the system error of
network/server error, the bank account of
the petitioner was not freezed by the branch
office of the Bank on the same day. The
account of the petitioner was freezed on
23.02.2019.

VII - After registration of the
complaint filed by the petitioner with the
respondent no. 2 Bank and also request for
freezing aforesaid Bank Account, the
respondent Bank could not freeze the Bank
Account
which
resulted
in
illegal
withdrawal of Rs. 99,900/- in four
transactions of Rs. 20,000/- each and one
transaction of 19900/- on 22.02.2019 and
another sum of Rs. one lacs in five
transaction
of
Rs.
20,000
each
on
23.02.2019.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has
produced
before
us
the
Policy/Guideline "Customer ProtectionLimiting Liability of Customers in
Unauthorized
Electronic
Banking
Transactions" circulated by Reserve Bank
of India vide RBI/2017-18/15 DBR. No.
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Leg.
BC.
78/09.07.005/2017-18 dated
06.07.2017.

8. Clause nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 of
the aforesaid Policy/Guideline of the
Reserve Bank of India are reproduced
below:-

"5. Banks must ask their customers to
mandatorily register for SMS alerts and
wherever available register for e-mail
alerts, for electronic banking transactions.
The SMS alerts shall mandatorily be sent to
the customers, while email alerts may be
sent, wherever registered. The customers
must be advised to notify their bank of any
unauthorised
electronic
banking
transaction at the earliest after the
occurrence
of
such
transaction, and
informed that the longer the time taken to
notify the bank, the higher will be the risk
of loss to the bank/ customer. To facilitate
this, banks must provide customers with
24x7 access through multiple channels (at
a minimum, via website, phone banking,
SMS, e-mail, IVR, a dedicated toll-free
helpline, reporting to home branch, etc.)
for reporting unauthorised transactions
that have taken place and/ or loss or theft
of payment instrument such as card, etc.
Banks shall also enable customers to
instantly respond by "Reply" to the SMS
and e-mail alerts and the customers
should not be required to search for a web
page or an e-mail address to notify the
objection, if any. Further, a direct link for
lodging the complaints, with specific option
to
report
unauthorised
electronic
transactions shall be provided by banks on
home page of their website. The loss/ fraud
reporting system shall also ensure that
immediate
response
(including
auto
response) is sent to the customers
acknowledging the complaint along with
the registered complaint number. The
communication systems used by banks to
send alerts and receive their responses
thereto must record the time and date of
delivery of the message and receipt of
customer's response, if any, to them. This
shall be important in determining the
extent of a customer's liability. The banks
may not offer
facility
of
electronic
transactions,
other
than
ATM
cash
withdrawals, to customers who do not
provide mobile numbers to the bank. On
receipt of report of an unauthorised
transaction from the customer, banks
must take immediate steps to prevent
further unauthorised transactions in the
account.

Limited Liability of a Customer

(a) Zero Liability of a Customer

6. A customer's entitlement to zero
liability shall arise where the unauthorised
transaction occurs in the following events:

(i) Contributory fraud/ negligence/
deficiency on the part of the bank
(irrespective of whether or not the
transaction is reported by the customer).

(ii) Third party breach where the
deficiency lies neither with the bank nor
with the customer but lies elsewhere in the
system, and the customer notifies the bank
within three working days of receiving the
communication from the bank regarding
the unauthorised transaction.

(b) Limited Liability of a Customer

7. A customer shall be liable for the
loss
occurring
due
to
unauthorised
transactions in the following cases:

(i) In cases where the loss is due to
negligence by a customer, such as where he
has shared the payment credentials, the
customer will bear the entire loss until he
reports the unauthorised transaction to the
bank.
Any
loss
occurring
after
the
reporting of the unauthorised transaction
shall be borne by the bank.
6 All. Awadhesh Singh Vs. R.B.I., through Reg. Director, Kanpur & Ors.
337

(ii) In cases where the responsibility
for the unauthorised electronic banking
transaction lies neither with the bank nor
with the customer, but lies elsewhere in the
system and when there is a delay (of four to
seven working days after receiving the
communication from the bank) on the

RBI,DBR,CO - 4 - continuation sheet

part of the customer in notifying the
bank of such a transaction, the per
transaction liability of the customer shall
be limited to the transaction value or the
amount mentioned in Table 1, whichever is
lower.

Table 1

Maximum Liability of a Customer
under paragraph 7 (ii)

Type of Account
Maximum
liability (₹)

BSBD Accounts
5,000
All other SB accounts
 Pre-paid
Payment
Instruments and Gift
Cards
 Current/ Cash Credit/
Overdraft Accounts of
MSMEs
-
Current
Accounts/
Cash Credit/ Overdraft
Accounts of Individuals
with
annual average
balance
(during
365
days
preceding
the
incidence
of
fraud)/
limit up to Rs.25 lakh
Credit cards with limit
up to Rs.5 lakh

10,000
All other Current/ Cash
Credit/
Overdraft
Accounts
Credit cards with limit
25,000
above Rs.5 lakh

Further, if the delay in reporting is
beyond seven working days, the customer
liability shall be determined as per the
bank's Board approved policy. Banks shall
provide the details of their policy in regard
to
customers'
liability
formulated
in
pursuance of these directions at the time of
opening the accounts. Banks shall also
display their approved policy in public
domain for wider dissemination. The
existing
customers
must
also
be
individually informed about the bank's
policy.

9. On being notified by the customer,
the bank shall credit (shadow reversal) the
amount involved in the unauthorised
electronic transaction to the customer's
account within 10 working days from the
date of such notification by the customer
(without
waiting
for
settlement
of
insurance claim, if any). Banks may also
at their discretion decide to waive off any
customer liability in case of unauthorised
electronic banking transactions even in
cases of customer negligence. The credit
shall be value dated to be as of the date of
the unauthorised transaction.

11. Taking into account the risks
arising out of unauthorised debits to
customer accounts owing to customer
negligence/
bank
negligence/
banking
system frauds/ third party breaches, banks
need to clearly define the rights and
obligations of customers in case of
unauthorised transactions in specified
scenarios. Banks shall formulate/ revise
their customer relations policy, with
approval of their Boards, to cover aspects
of customer protection, including the
mechanism of creating customer awareness
on the risks and responsibilities involved in
electronic
banking
transactions
and
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
customer
liability
in
such
cases
of
unauthorised
electronic
banking
transactions.
The
policy
must
be
transparent, non-discriminatory and should
stipulate the mechanism of compensating
the
customers
for
the
unauthorised
electronic banking transactions and also
prescribe the timelines for effecting such
compensation
keeping
in
view
the
instructions contained in paragraph 10
above. The policy shall be displayed on the
bank's website along with the details of
grievance handling/ escalation procedure.
The instructions contained in this circular
shall be incorporated in the policy.

Burden of Proof

12. The burden of proving customer
liability in case of unauthorised electronic
banking transactions shall lie on the bank."

9. From the facts admitted by the
respondent Bank in its counter affidavit as
aforenoted and the guidelines of the
Reserve Bank of India, it is evident that
there was negligence on the part of the
respondent Bank due to which a sum of Rs.
ninety nine thousand and nine hundred in
four transactions of Rs. 20,000/- each and
one
transaction
of
Rs.
19,900/-
on
22.02.2019 and another sum of Rs. one lacs
in five transaction of Rs. 20,000 each on
23.02.2019
were
illegally
withdrawn
through electronic Bank transaction, from
the salary bank account of the petitioner.
As per aforenoted guidelines of the Reserve
Bank of India which is binding upon the
respondent Bank, the respondent Bank was
to ensure immediate response and to freeze
the Bank Account after the petitioner
reported
unauthorized
transaction
on
21.02.2019

10. For the unauthorized aforesaid
banking transactions in the bank account of
the
petitioner
on
22.02.2019
and
23.02.2019 as per Clause VI of the
aforequoted policy of the R.B.I., the
petitioner is entitled to zero liability
because the unauthorized transaction was
the result of negligence on the part of the
respondent Bank.

11. As per Clause 9 of the aforenoted
policy of the Reserve Bank of India, on
being notified by the customer, the bank
shall credit (shadow reversal) the amount
involved in the unauthorized electronic
transaction to the customer's account within
10 working days from the date of such
notification by the customer (without
waiting for settlement of insurance claim, if
any). Banks may also at their discretion
decide to waive off any customer liability
in case of unauthorized electronic banking
transactions even in cases of customer
negligence. The credit shall be value dated
to be as of the date of the unauthorized
transaction.

12. Since it is admitted by the
respondent Bank that despite the petitioner
lodged the complaint and notified it on
21.02.2019 and yet the respondent bank
had not freezed the aforesaid bank account
of the petitioner, as a result of which Rs.
1,99,900 were unauthorizedly withdrawn
from the bank account of the petitioner.
Therefore, in terms of aforenoted clauses of
the policy of the Reserve Bank of India, the
bank is liable to credit the amount involved
in
the
unauthorized
transaction
in
petitioner's account to the extent of the
transactions
which
took
place
on
22.02.2019 and 23.02.2019.

13. So far as the transaction which
took place on 21.02.2019, we are not
expressing any opinion with regard to the
liability of the respondent Bank in terms of
clause 9 of the aforequoted policy.
6 All. Hafiz Naushad Ahmad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
339

14. So far as the closure of complaint of
the petitioner by Banking Ombudsman is
concerned, we find that the complaint of the
petitioner was closed merely on the ground
that the ground of complaint do not fall
within clause 8 of the Banking Ombudsman
Scheme 2006.

15. Perusal of Clause 8 of the Banking
Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 shows that it
does not cover the controversy as involved in
the present writ petition. Therefore, the
closure of the complaint by the Banking
Ombudsman does not come in the way of the
petitioner to get credit of the unauthorized
transactions in terms of Clause 9 of the
Reserve Bank of India Policy.

16. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition is partly allowed.

17. The respondent no. 2 i.e. the Punjab
National Bank, Subedarganj, Prayagraj is
directed to take action and give credit of the
unauthorizedly withdrawn amount to the
petitioner in terms of the aforenoted policy of
the RBI, expeditiously, preferably within ten
days from the date of presentation of a copy
of this order.
----------

(2021)06ILR A339
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Writ-C No. 4585 of 2021

Hafiz Naushad Ahmad & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shri Mohammad Ali Ausaf, Shri V.K. Singh
(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Shri Manu Vardhana

Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections
370, 371, 372, 373 & 374 - Compensation
on
account
of
accidental
death
-
Disbursement - D.M. not making payment
of compensation on ground petitioners not
produced succession certificate - Held -
parents of deceased cannot be asked to
produce succession certificate- Succession
certificate can be granted only in respect
of "debts" or "securities" to which a
deceased was entitled - word "security" as
defined in Section 370(2) does not include
compensation - there is no requirement to
obtain a succession certificate under the
provisions of Part X (Sections 370 to 390)
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to
receive compensation amount awarded on
account of death of the son of the
petitioners (Para 12)

Allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rukhsana (Smt) & ors. Vs Nazrunnisa (Smt)
& anr. 2000 (9) SCC 240

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J. & Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Ali
Ausaf, learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned standing counsel for the State -
respondents and Sri Manu Vardhana,
learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following relief : -

(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding
the
respondent
no.2
to