ORDER S.N. Kapoor, Presiding Member — Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order and the record. 2. In this matter, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed against the order of the District Forum, directing the Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank to allow Smt. Shanti Devi to operate the bank account. The Husband of Smt. Shanti Devi opened bank account on 12.11.1997 in his name. After a few days, Smt. Shanti Devi-petitioner was also joined as an account holder with the mandate ‘either or survivor’ but after some time on account of some misunderstanding and dispute in the family, both of them withdrew the mandate of ‘either or survivor’. The question before the consumer fora was whether the alleged survivor or the joint account holder, the complainant could operate the account alone and the bank could not ask for succession certificate. It is apparent that the amount was deposited by her husband. She was joined later on as joint account holder. In substance, the amount belonged to late Jagannath Turha and his legal representative would be entitle to get the amount in terms of Section 45 of the Contract Act. The illustration to Section 45 of Contract Act reads as under: - “Devolution of joint rights.— When a person has made a promise to two or more persons jointly, then, unless a contrary intention appears from the contract, the right to claim performance rests as between him and them, with them during their joint lives, and, after the death of any of them, with the representative of such deceased person jointly with the survivor or survivors, and, after the death of the last survivor, with the representatives of all jointly.” Following illustration makes the things more clear: - “A, in consideration of 5,000,’- rupees lent to him by B and C. promises B and C jointly to repay them that sum with interest on a day: specified. B dies. The right to claim performance rests with B’s representative jointly with C during C’s life, and after the death of C. with the representative of B and C Jointly." 3. The abovesaid illustrating precisely covers the present case. B dies. The right to claim performance rests with B’s representative jointly with C during C’s life, and after the death of C. with the representative of B and C Jointly." 3. The abovesaid illustrating precisely covers the present case. Consequently, the State Commission was justified in holding that the Bank could not allow operation of the account by one of the account holders alone without there being succession certificate and in case the bank would do so, it may face litigation later on which may be initiated by the daughter and other heirs of the deceased. This view is technically right. 4. However, a solution-cum- justice oriented approach is need of the hour. One should not forget that it requires time, energy and money to obtain a succession certificate. Parties should not be forced to take such a long expensive and tiresome rout, when the problem can be solved otherwise protecting interest of all for satisfaction of their equitable rights. 5. Accordingly, if other heirs of the deceased give consent on an affidavit on due identification and have no objection, then the Bank should release the amount in favour of the complainant alongwith other heirs or should allow the complainant petitioner to withdraw 50% amount from the bank account after taking an indemnity bond from her to safeguard the interest of the Bank, as well as other legal heirs. This view is essential to give a human face to our banking system as well as consumer to develop consumer friendly approach of consumer fora to help the hapless widows facing disputes in the family. The respondent bank is supposed to show this human face. 6. With the above observation, the revision petition is disposed of. Revision disposed of accordingly. ***********