Indusind Bank — Deceased Account Claim

Address:

Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, 211001

LEGAL REPRESENTATION : DECEASED CLAIM SETTLEMENT; INDUSIND BANK, CIVIL LINES, ALLAHABAD. KRISHAN LAL GROVER R/O 57- TAGORE TOWN, ALLAHABD. SAVING BANK A/c No. 0124-K[protected]; CUSTOMER ID: K33543.

Dear Sir,
This is to inform you that Krishan Lal Grover had a saving bank account in IndusInd Bank details mentioned above, he made Mr. Ramesh Singh his son-in law as nominee of the said account. Krishan Lal Grover expired on 12.09.2012, leaving 5 legal heirs 3 daughters and 2 sons 1. Late Madhulika Chugh through her legal heirs Sarika Agarwal and Parikshit Chugh, 2. Meena Magon, 3. Ranjana Singh. (Daughters) 4. Ajay Grover, 5. Vijay Grover (Sons).
That the deceased Krishan Lal Grover also executed a registered will, in which the undersigned is appointed as the executer of the will and having power to collect all the funds from all the accounts of the deceased and distribute it to the beneficiaries according to the will.
That the undersigned after getting the signature of all the legal heirs submitted the necessary document on 16.10.2012, but later one of the legal heir Meena Magon revoked her consent by telephonic call to the then Bank Manager and the reason for her doing the same was because later when the will was read amongst the legal heirs, nothing was bequeathed in her favour, as she already had taken much of financial assistance time to time from the deceased in his life time.
That the fact that the undersigned been the nominee and also the executer of the will of the deceased must have been enough proof for the bank to confirm the identity of the undersigned as per the bank policy i.e.
“DECEASED DEPOSIT ACCOUNT
a) Settlement of dues

i) If the depositor has registered nomination with the Bank; – the balance
outstanding in the account of the deceased depositor will be transferred
to the account of / paid to the nominee after the Bank satisfies about the
identity of the nominee, etc.

iv) The survivor(s)/nominee would be receiving the payment from the Bank as a trustee of the legal heirs of the deceased depositor, i.e., such
payment to him / them shall not affect the right or claim which any person
may have against the survivor(s)/nominee to whom the payment is made.”

That bare perusal of the above policy of the Bank shall be enough to understand that the undersigned satisfies the above given terms, Firstly, as he is both the nominee and a authorized executer of the Will unless it is challenged by any of the legal heir which is not yet challenged till now, Secondly the person who is objecting as a legal heir, unfortunately is not a beneficiaries in the will of the deceased and that takes away the right from her to challenge the will in the court of law.
That it has to be clear to the bank that a legal heir will always be a legal heir nothing can change its status but it is not a compulsion that every legal heir is a beneficiary unless specifically mentioned in a registered will, in present case a registered will is present but the name of the legal heir who is objecting is no mentioned as beneficiary, so in total the objection raised by Meena Magon is nuisance and nothing else, which shouldn’t have been entertained by the bank on the first hand.
That the bank inspite of asking Meena Magon to get the will probated and then file an objection in the bank asked the undersigned to get the will probated in order to release the fund of the account of the deceased. A simple logic bank is not willing to understand that why should an executer file for probate, the one who has objection shall file for probate.
That the undersigned gave a written legal representation to the bank on asking for the grounds on which such objection has been entertained,
That the bank is bound to pay the nominee of the account, as per the policy for settlement of claims in respect of deceased account holders unless any of the legal heir has filed any case in court of law, in regards with such bank account and which is affecting her constitutional rights, and objection has to supported with a judicial order, in which it is specifically mentioned as to status quo. As per law the burden to proof lies on the legal heir in this case to prove the nomination of the nominee is wrong.
That the bank has not acted as per the laws and regulation of the bank and on the contrary has accepted the objection of a person who is not legally eligible to put any objection of any sort in terms of the banking rules and regulation which clearly states that the nominee shall receive the funds of the deceased in absence of any formal judicial order of any court of law filed by any legal heirs of the deceased in support of his/her objection to the bank.

Regards

Ramesh Singh
Nominee