BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.189/2009

Between

Complainant : Jose Michael,

Vattakkunnel House,

Kaliyar P.O, Vandamattom,

Vannappuram,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Biju Vasudevan)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,

Karimban Service Co-operative Bank

Kochukarimban P.O,

Idukki District.

2. The President,

Karimban Service Co-operative Bank

Kochukarimban P.O,

Idukki District.

(Both by Adv: Joseph Pathalil)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

The father of the complainant, late Mr.Michael, Vattakkunnel, Upputhodu was having 5 fixed deposits in the opposite party bank as Rs.50,000/- in account No.394/01, Rs.50,000/- in account No.426/02, Rs.30,000/- in account No.546/03, Rs.20,000/- in account No.547/03 and Rs.35,000/- in account No.582/04. The father of the complainant late Mr.Michael authorised his son Mr.Jose Michael, who is the complainant in this case to withdraw his fixed deposits at the opposite party bank. On 18.06.2005, an application was filed at the opposite party bank on the same day by the father of the complainant. In that fixed deposits, Rs.50,000/- was already withdrawn by the father of the complainant. The said Michael was expired on 21.12.2006. So the complainant approached the opposite party bank with the authorisation letter given by his father to withdraw the balance FD in the opposite party bank. On 18.06.2007 the complainant received Rs.50,000/- from account No.426/01 and Rs.20,000/- from the account No.517/03 from the opposite party bank without any dispute. But after when the complainant approached the opposite party to withdraw the balance amount Rs.35,000/- and Rs.30,000/- in July 2009, the opposite party informed that there is a dispute in the transaction of the complainant from the bank. So they refused to withdraw the balance amount. Hence a petition was filed before the Assistant Registrar by the complainant and the Assistant Registrar, Udumbanchola ordered to disburse the balance amount within 15 days to the complainant. But the opposite party never acted upon as per the order and so this petition is filed for getting the balance amount from the account of the complainant's father.
 

2. As per the written version of the opposite parties, there is no document produced by the complainant before the opposite party bank to show that the complainant is the authroised person to receive the fixed deposit of his father late Mr.Michael. The opposite party is not aware of the legal heirs of the complainant's father late Mr.Michael. So they directed the complainant to produce legal heir-ship certificate from the concerned authority. One of the brother of the complainant filed an objection regarding the releasing of the fixed deposit of the complainant's father from the opposite party bank. The opposite party is ready to disburse the amount to the legal heirs of the deceased Mr.Micheal. So there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5(series) marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced from the side of opposite parties.
 

5. The POINT :- The father of the complainant late Mr.Michael was having 5 fixed deposits in the opposite party bank. After the death of his father, the complainant approached the opposite party to withdraw the fixed deposits of the complainant's father with an authorisation given by his father. But the opposite party disbursed 2 of the fixed deposits to the complainant and they refused to withdraw the balance fixed deposits because there is an objection filed by the brother of the complainant. Complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.P1 is the copy of the letter dated 18.06.2005 written by the father of the complainant to the Secretary of the Ist opposite party stating that PW1 is the only authorised person to receive the FD of his father late Mr.Michael. Ext.P2 is another letter written by the father of the complainant late Mr.Michael requesting the Ist opposite party to close his fixed deposits. The complainant has received 2 of the Fixed deposits, one was already withdrawn by his father before his death. Now 2 of the deposits are pending before the opposite party, but they refused to withdraw the same because there is an objection from the brother of the complainant. It is admitted by the opposite party that they have disbursed 2 of the fixed deposits to the complainant. But after that his brother filed an objection for disbursing the amount to PW1. So the complainant filed a petition before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, which is marked as Ext.P3. In that petition the Assistant Registrar ordered to disburse the amount to the legal heirs of late Mr.Michael within 15 days. The only dispute is that whether the complainant is authorised to receive the amount deposited by his father. Exts.P1 and P2 are the copy of the letters written by the father of the complainant to the opposite party bank in which the seal and signature of the Ist opposite party is also affixed. Considering that letters the opposite party has disbursed 2 of the fixed deposits to the complainant. But it is not written anywhere in the written version about the name of the nominee of the FD. But the objection filed by the brother of the complainant was not produced by the opposite party. It is denied by the opposite party in the written version that there is no authorisation given by the father of the complainant to the opposite party bank appointing complainant to withdraw the FD. But Exts.P1 and P2 were not disputed by the opposite party while cross examined by the learned counsel for the opposite party. So we think that the father of the complainant Mr.Michael has given authorisation to the opposite party bank to receive the FD from the opposite party bank to the complainant. The opposite party refused the same stating that there is an objection filed by the brother of the complainant, but the copy of the same is not yet produced. The opposite party ought to have directed the complainant to produce the legal heir certificate before releasing the 2 of the fixed deposits to the complainant, if there is no such authorisation from his father. So we think that there is gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party and the complainant is entitled to get the FD amount from the opposite party bank.
 

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to disburse the FD of late Mr.Michael to the complainant as per Ext.P1 authorisation within one month, if the complainant produces the documents of the Fixed Deposits. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25^th day of February, 2010
 

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Jose Michael

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Carbon copy of letter dated 18.06.2005 issued by the father of the complainant to the Ist opposite party

Ext.P2 - Carbon copy of letter dated 18.06.2005 issued by the father of the complainant requesting the Ist opposite party to close his FDs

Ext.P3 - Carbon copy of Order dated 25.08.2009 issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Udumbanchola

Ext.P4 - True copy of Demand Notice dated 17.06.2009 issued by the opposite party

Ext.P5(a)- True copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt dated 10.01.2004 for Rs.35,000/-

Ext.P5(b) - True copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt dated 23.04.2003 for Rs.30,000/-

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil