IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.311/2015
- Sarah, 71 years,W/o Jermias,
Chankoorazhikathu veedu,
Kandachira, Panayam P.O., Kollam
(By Adv.V.Jyothisagar)
2. James, S/o Jermias,
Chankoorazhikathu veedu,
Kandachira, Panayam P.O., Kollam
(By Adv.V.Jyothisagar)
3rd Addl.complainant:
James(52),
S/o Jermias, Chankoorazhikathu veedu,
Kandachira, Panayam village, Kollam
4th Addl.complainant:
Vimalamma(58)
W/o Antony,Pandarathin Melathil,
Kandachira, Panayam village, Kollam
5th Addl.complainant:
Santhamma (56)
W/o Antony, Pandarathin Melathil,
Kandachira, Panayam village, Kollam : Complainants
6th Addl.complainant:
Jainamma (56)
D/o Sara, Chankoorazhikathu veedu,
Kandachira, Panayam village, Kollam
7th Addl.complainant:
Lillikutty,
W/o Albert, Mavila veedu veedu,
Kandachira, Panayam village, Kollam
V/s
1. Rep.by Secretary,
Kollam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.No.960 : Opposite parties
(By Adv.A.Manoj)
2. Sophiya John, D/o Johnson,
Shalome puthen madom, Excel Nagar 67,
Thevally P.O. Kollam West Village, Kollam
(By Adv.P.Sankara Pillai)
ORDER
Sri.E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M,President
1.This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2.The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant’s brother Jermias expired on 19.01.2015. The 2nd complainant is the son of the 1st complainant. Late Jermias was a divorcee and had no children in his wedlock. The legal heirs of the Late Jermias are the complainant and a brother named Joseph. The said Joseph relinquished all his right as legal heir of late Jermias by executing a consent deed . Late Jermias had executed a registered Will deed in favour of 1st complainant transferring all his assets to her after his death. Jermias had fixed deposits in various branches of the Kollan Co-operative Urban bank Ltd., Kollam Co-operative bank and Kottamukku branch of Coastal Urban bank. In those fixed deposits the 2nd opposite party and her mother who were residing at the residence of the deceased Jermias were named as nominees. They have received the amounts as nominees from all banks except the 1st opposite party Bank. However they have not given the amounts to be legal heirs of the deceased Jermias and have utilized it for their own purpose. By knowing this the 1st complainant approached the 1st opposite party with the original FD receipts of the account Nos.76489, 76499 and 76491 and requested that the amounts should not be given to the nominee but an employee of the 1st opposite party Bank named Rahul rejected the request and also threatened by stating that the amounts will be released to the nominee unless there is a court order. By knowing that the 1st opposite party will release the amount to the nominee even without original FD receipts the 1st complainant issued a legal notice dated 17.10.2015 and demanded not to release the amount to the nominee. But the 1st opposite party did not pay heed to the demand and illegally issued duplicate of FD receipts and further transferred the amount to the 2nd opposite party. The above said acts amounts to unfair trade practice as well as the deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party Bank and complainants who are entitled to get proper service as legal heirs of late Jermias, were denied the same and thereby the complainants have suffered huge monitory loss. The 1st opposite party committed gross deficiency in service by releasing the amounts prematurely and clear case of unfair trade practice. Therefore the complainants are entitled to get compensation and hence the complaint.
3.Originally there were 2 complainants. Subsequently 1st complainant died. The power of attorney holder of the 1st complainant who is the additional 3rd complainant has filed IA 20/2018 praying to implead the legal heirs of the deceased 1st complainant as additional complainant No. 3 to 7. After hearing both sides the prayer was allowed and impleadment was carried out vide order in I.A 20/18 dated 27.02.2018.
4.On 21.01.2020 the learned counsel for the complainant on behalf of additional 3rd complainant has filed a petition as I.A 18/2020 praying to delete the 2nd complainant James as he has been wrongly arrayed. After hearing both sides the prayer was allowed. The 2nd complainant was deleted from the party array vide order in I.A 18/2020 dated 06.02.2020.
5.The original prayer in the complaint was to direct the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in the original complainant to return Rs.1,62,200/- along with the interest of at the rate of 11.25% per annum and costs Rs.10,000/- to the complainants. Subsequently the complainant filed a petition as IA 171/2020 praying to delete the original relief and to incorporate modified relief No. 1 and 2. Accordingly the prayer was allowed on 15.02.2020 and amended the relief “ as direct the opposite party No.1 to pay compensation (amount not specified) for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and consequent mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and also allow the costs of the proceedings.” In short no specific relief is sought against the 2nd opposite party in the amended complaint.
6.The 1st opposite party resisted the complaint by filing version raising the following contentions. The 1st opposite party is registered Co-operative society and is engaged in the banking within Kollam Taluk as per the regulations of RBI. The complainants have no right to file this complaint and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. The complainants have filed the complaint with some ulterior motive to defame the bank. The complainant and 2nd opposite party are close relatives. The complainant is not a legal heir of late Jermias. Complainants are not the customers or shareholders of the 1st opposite party bank. No consumer service provider relationship exists between the complainants and the 1st opposite party bank. The complainants have not received any service from the 1st opposite party bank and there is no deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party bank. The bank is being conducted lawfully and they have not conspired with 2nd opposite party as alleged. The nominees of late Jermias had approached the bank after his death and amounts were lawfully released to the nominees. The bank is liable to release the amounts if the depositor has appointed a person as nominee in his accounts, unless there is court order to the contrary. The amount of Rs.106500/- released to Sophia John after calling for objections through an advertisement published in Kerala Kaumudy daily dated 13.05.2015. No one had filed objections for the same. The amount was transferred to her sole account No.2462/C after obtaining an indemnity bond. The bank had acted in accordance with the banking rules and regulations. The 2nd complainant had visited the bank along with the Sophia John on several occasions but he had not disclosed that he was in possession of the original FD receipts. Complainants had not raised any objections and seems that they have misappropriated the FD receipts from the real legal heirs. The 1st opposite party bank has acted lawfully and if the complainants are entitled to any amount as legal heirs they have to approach the court of law. The 1st opposite party has not committed any unfair trade practice. The complainants are not consumer of the 1st opposite party bank. The complainants have approached the forum with ulterior motive. The 1st opposite party further prays to award compensation and also prays to dismiss the complaint.
7.The 2nd opposite party resisted the averments in the complaint through her mother and power of attorney by filing separate version raising the following contentions. Sri.Jermias residing at Shalomputhen Madom, Thevally was a retired loco pilot and was expired on 19.01.2015. The 2nd opposite party further contented that Jermias has lead an independent and lonely life without any family, either wife or children or any close relatives. The 2nd opposite party and her family members were friends for long time as they were residing as neighbors in the same compound. It was the 2nd opposite party and her family members who have provided company of good friendship and care for years when the said Jermias was alive. She and her family looked after him as their own family member was given proper medical care and attention as and when he was laid up all the time until his death on 19.01.2015. The 1st complainant and one Joseph are not his legal heirs as claimed. They were never present or seen as relatives and legal heirs as they claim either in the residence of the Jermias while he was alive or when he was hospitalized during the course of his illness. The opposite party further contented that the claim of the complainant that the late Jermias has made and registered a Will deed assigning all the properties if any which were left over, to the 1st complainant is false and hence denied. The allegation that collusion between the opposite parties had caused loss and deficiency in service to the complainants as legal heirs of Jermias is a wide stretch of imagination and is strongly refuted. They are neither legal heirs nor entitled to receive any service as alleged. The allegation that the late Jermias had deposited Rs.60 lakh as fixed deposit in different branches of the Kollam Co-operative Bank assigning the 2nd opposite party and her mother as nominees is wrong and hence denied. The bond of friendship between Jermias and the 2nd opposite party and her family was such that his upkeep and hospital stays were looked after by them as one of their own family members. It is out of such relation of friendship, love and affection that he had made the 2nd opposite party as nominee in some of the deposits with the bank with the sole intention that she should get the amount of those deposits. He had designated the 2nd opposite party as the nominee with the sole intention of receiving and appropriating the payment by the 2nd opposite party herself. The 2nd opposite party has lost the originals of the fixed deposits in which she has been designated as the nominee. It is firmly believed by the 2nd opposite party that the originals were stolen by the alleged legal heirs when they trespassed in to the residence of the deceased Jermias in the garb of close relatives after his death. The allegation that 1st opposite party had given duplicate copies of the lost fixed deposit receipts and it enabled the 2nd opposite party to release the deposits is utter false. She had had with her the copies of the cited deposits and approached the bank, informed the bank about the loss of the originals and requested for its payment. It is further contended by the 2nd opposite party that as per the legal provisions, after giving the public notification, she has availed her legal right to release the deposits for her own and in the said transaction there is no collusion involved between the bank and the 2nd opposite party as alleged by the complainant. The complainants are totally strangers to the late Jermias. They were neither present nor seen any time in the residence of Jermias while he was alive or in the hospital where he was frequently admitted for treatment. Only after his death they emerge in the scene as legal heirs. The claim that the late Jermias had executed a Will in their favour is false and absurd. The attempt of the complainant to get reliefs from the Hon’ble forum is without any locus- standi. The 2nd opposite party further contended that the complainants are not consumers and hence the complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum. The complainants have filed this complaint on the basis of a Will, which is forged and fabricated. Since the execution of the Will is denied by the 2nd opposite party an adjudication of genuiness of the Will is absolutely essential, which a competent civil court alone has jurisdiction to decide. When a depositor deposits amount in a bank and name a person as his nominee to receive the amount, on his death, under law, the said amount absolutely belongs to the nominee. It is further contended that the bank has duly paid the amount to the 2nd opposite party as the nominee and hence the question of any deficiency in service does not arise at all. The 2nd opposite party further prays to dismiss the complaint.
8. In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether the complainants are consumers of the 1st opposite party bank?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 ?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the complaint?
- Reliefs and costs?
9. Evidence on the side of the complainants consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.P1 to P8 documents. Evidence on the side of the opposite parties consists of the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 and Ext.D1 to D11 documents.
10. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed notes of argument. Heard the counsel for the complainant. Though sufficient opportunity was granted the learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2 have not filed any notes of argument nor advanced any oral argument.
Point No.1
11.The present complaint has been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Jermias alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of 1st opposite party bank.
12.The opposite parties No.1 and 2 would contend that the original complainants or the additional complainants No.3 to 7 are having no locus standi to file the present complaint as there is no consumer, service provider relationship nor the complainants are the members of the 1st opposite party Co-operative Bank and hence they are not consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The 2nd opposite party would further contend that the complainants are not the legal heirs of the deceased Jermias nor the deceased Jermias executed any Will deed in favour of the 1st complainant and the alleged Will deed is a forged and fabricated document. In the light of the materials available on record we find no merit in the above contentions of the opposite parties 1 and 2. The term consumer is defined U/s 2(7) (i) and (ii). 2(7) (i) relates to goods and 2(7)(ii) relates to service. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that a co-operative bank is a service provider of its customer. Admittedly the deceased Jermias was maintaining SB a/c and having several fixed deposits with the 1st opposite party bank and other branches of the 1st opposite party bank. Therefore it is clear that the deceased Jermias was a consumer of the 1st opposite party bank. It is clear from the oral evidence of PW1 and the admission of DW2 and Ext.P3 succession certificate that the complainants 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased Jermias. Since they are legal heirs they are the beneficiaries of service rendered by the bank to the deceased Jermias. In the circumstances the 1st complainant and additional complainants who are the legal heirs of the deceased Jermias would come within the term the consumer as defined U/s 2(7) (ii). Therefore the complainants are having locus-standi to file the present complaint and the contention to the contrary is having no merit at all. The point answered accordingly in favour of the complainants.
Point No.2
13. PW1 is none other than the original 2nd complainant. The evidence of PW1 would show that he is the son of the 1st complainant and deceased Jermias is none other than his maternal uncle being the direct brother of the 1st complainant. The said Jermias has died on 19.01.2015 that the said Jermias during his lifetime has legally divorced his wife and was having no children in the wedlock . In the light of the above evidence it is clear that the original complainant No. 1 and 2 are the only legal heirs of the deceased Jermias. It is also brought out in evidence that the 2nd complainant has relinquished his right over the assets left by his brother deceased Jermias in favor of the 1st complainant. It is also an undisputed fact that deceased Jermias was a loco pilot in the Indian railway and he retired from service and was getting service pension.
14. The main relief sought for in the amended complaint is to permit the complainants to recover compensation from the 1st opposite party bank for the mental agony and financial loss caused to them on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the said 1st opposite party Bank. It is to be pointed out that in the original complaint the 1st relief was to allow the complainant to recover Rs.1,62,200/- along with the interest of at the rate of 11.25% per annum and Rs.10,000/- as costs from the opposite parties. But in the amended complaint the complainant has not sought for any specified amount of loss sustained to the complainant on account of the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the bank. It is further to be pointed out that in the amended relief no specific relief is sought for against the 2nd opposite party. It is brought out in evidence that the complainants have filed a civil as before the sub court 1st Kollam as OS 32/2016 seeking to realize Rs.37,68,707/- from the 2nd opposite party and that may be reason why the complainants have not quantified the loss nor sought for the recovery of any specific amount from the 2nd opposite party. It is further to be point out that the address of the 2nd opposite party is not stated in the complaint. What is stated is Sophia John ‘do’ what is the -do- is not clear. Usually if the address of the 2nd opposite party is similar to that of the 1st opposite party the term ‘do’ is to be used to show that the address of the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party is one and same. But in this case the 1st opposite party is Kollam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.960 represented by Secretary. The said address of the 1st opposite party may not be the address of the 2nd opposite party. Even if this fact has been pointed out by the 1st opposite party in its version the complainant was not ready to correct the address of the 2nd opposite party. As no relief is sought against the 2nd opposite party not furnishing the address of the 2nd opposite party is not much material.
15. The materials available on record would establish that Late Jermias was a divorcee and had no children in his wedlock. The complainant and another brother named Joseph are the only legal heirs of the Late Jermias. The brother Joseph has relinquished all his right as legal heir of Late Jermias executing a consent deed. In the circumstances the complainant is the only person entitled to inherit the assets including fixed deposit. But all the above deposits the 2nd opposite party and her mother were named as nominees. They have already received the amounts as nominees from all banks except the 1st opposite party bank.
16. Now we shall consider whether there is deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party bank.
17.Before evaluating the evidence regarding alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the definition of term deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is to be considered. Section 2(11) would defined deficiency. Accordingly deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes. (i) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer and (ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer. Now we shall considered whether the 1st opposite party bank has committed any such imperfection, shortcoming fault or inadequacy in their service to the complainants and whether the complainants have sustained any loss or injury on account of the deficiency in service of the 1st opposite party Bank. The materials available on record would establish that Late Jermias was a divorcee and had no children in his wedlock . The complainant and another brother named Joseph are the only legal heirs of the Late Jermias. The brother Joseph has relinquished all his right as legal heir of Late Jermias by executing a consent deed. In the circumstances the complainant is the only person entitled to inherit the assets including fixed deposit. But all the above deposits the 2nd opposite party and her mother were named as nominees. They have already received the amounts as nominees from all banks except the 1st opposite party bank.
18. The learned counsel for the complainant would argue that the 1st opposite party has improperly released amount by encashing 3 fixed deposits without having its original to the 2nd opposite party which has caused severe loss to the legal heirs of the deceased Jermias and thereby there is deficiency in service. Though the opposite parties would contend that the 1st complainant and additional complainants 3 to 7 are not the legal heirs of the deceased Jermias DW2 would admit during cross examination that Jermias \p Hcp ktlm-Z-c\pw Hcp ktlm-Z-cnbpw Df-f-Xmbn Adn-bmw. ktlm-Z-cn¡v 5 a¡-fp-v. She would further admit during cross examination that Jermias Xma-kn-¨n-cp¶ hkvXphpw hoSpw AXnsâ Ah-Im-in-I-fmb IqSp-XÂ hmZn-IÄ hnäp. Ext.P2 Will deed and Ext.P3 succession certificate etc. would well establish that the complainants and additional complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased Jermias and the contention of the opposite parties to the contrary is devoid of any merit.
19. According to DW1 in the event of death of the account holder the legal heirs/successor/survivor A¡uv tlmÄUÀam-cm-Ipw. Therefore it is clear that the complainants being the legal heirs of the deceased account holder would be deemed as the account holders. Ext.D11 circular No.04/13 dated 14.07.2005 issued on the basis of the guidelines of RBI would indicate that in the event of death of the depositor the bank has to exercise due care and caution in releasing the amount to the survivor or nominee and that the survivor or nominee is expected to receive the amount from the bank as a trustee of the legal heirs of the deceased depositor. In the light of the above direction in the Ext.D11 circular it is clear that even if nomination is made or survivor is alive on the death of the original depositor the bank has to pay the amount to the nominee or survivor as a trustee of the legal heirs of the deceased. It is clear from the available materials that the deceased Jermias has made several FDs at the 1st opposite party bank and out of those 3 FD receipts where in the hands of the 1st complainant that the said 3 FD receipts bearing No.76489, 76490 and 76491 along with the Will deed executed by the deceased Jermias favour the 1st complainant they rushed to the 1st opposite party bank, shown the above 3 original FD receipts and Will deed executed by the said Jermias in favour of the original first complainant. But one employee by name Rahul of the 1st opposite party bank has threatened the complainant and also told that if there is no court order restraining the release of the FD in favour of the nominee they will release the FDs to the 2nd opposite party.
20. It is also brought out in evidence that subsequently the complainant has cause to send P6 lawyer notice stating that, at the time of death of Jermias, some of the fixed deposit were in the name of Late Jermias but he appointed some strangers as nominee for the said F.D that during his last days some of the FDs kept in the locker of the Late Jermias were found missing and later it was come to know that those FDs were taken by the nearby residents, whose name are shown in the FDs as nominees and it is also learned that under the cover of the said nomination they managed to release the fixed deposited worth 60 lakhs and without disbursing the said amount to the legal heirs of late Jermias, the said amount was misappropriated by them against which the complainant has been taking legal action to recover the said amount and that now the complainant came to know that the said persons again approached the bank for getting released the above mentioned 3 FDs without having the original of it, under a pretext that the said FD receipts were lost. It is clear from the available materials that Ext.P6 notice was served on Manager 1st opposite party bank on 18.10.2015 where in it is stated that the original of the above 3 FD are with the complainant and they are the legal heirs of the deceased Jermias and the bank Manager very well knows by virtue of clause No 2 of D11 circular that nominee mentioned in the FD is only a trustee of the beneficiaries who are the legal heirs of the deceased and even if it is released the trustee has to discharge the trustee by entrusting the FD amount to the legal heirs. It is clear from the materials discussed above that the employees of 1st opposite party bank has generated duplicate of the above 3 FDs on 30.10.2015 which is after 12 days of the receipt of P6 lawyer notice and released amount covered by those 3 FDs in favour of the nominee. It is also brought out in evidence that the FDs were encashed at the fag end of the working hour of the bank and thereby it is clear that undue interest has been shown by the bank in disbursing the amount covered by the said 3 FDs to the nominee without the original FD receipts even after knowing that the original of those Fixed Deposits receipts are in the hands of the legal heir of the depositor.
21. According to the 1st opposite party the bank has made publication the Kerala Kaumudi newspaper stating that 3 FD receipts were irrecoverably lost. But the complainant and additional complainants have not filed any objection against the Newspaper publication. But it is brought out in evidence that the complainant has caused to send P6 lawyer notice and also shown the Will deed to the Bank authorities which amounts to objection to the paper publication. It is stated in Ext.P6 lawyer notice that the original of the above 3 FD receipts are with the complainants who are the legal heirs of the deceased Jermias. In the circumstances bank officials ought to have hold that the 3 FD receipts are not lost irrecoverably as claimed by the nominee and the originals of those receipts are with the 1st complainant and that there is dispute between the legal heirs of the deceased and the nominee, the bank ought to have wait for settling the dispute between the nominee and the legal heirs. But without waiting for the same the bank has created a duplicate of the 3 FDs for which 1st opposite party bank has no right or authority at all especially when it is made known to the bank that the original 3 FDs are available in the hands of the original 1st complainant. In the circumstances we are inclined to hold that there is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party bank. Point answered accordingly.
Point No.3
22. It is also brought out in evidence that the original complainants and additional complainants 3 to 7 have sustained mental agony apart from monitory loss due to the misfeasance and malfeasance of the 1st opposite party bank. Therefore they are entitled to get compensation from the 1st opposite party bank which committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that an amount of Rs.50,000/- will be reasonable compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the 1st opposite party bank towards additional complainants. They are also entitled to get costs of the litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The point answered accordingly.
Point No.4
23. In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.
The 1st opposite party bank is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the additional complainants No. 3 to 7 as compensation for the loss and injury sustained to them along with the interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of complaint till realization.
The 1st opposite party Bank is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the additional complainants 3 to 7.
The 1st opposite party Bank is directed to comply with direction No.1 & 2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of complaint till realization along with costs Rs.10,000/-.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30 th day of November 2020.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrabim:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-
PW1 : Jaimes
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 : Irrevocable power of attorney dated 23 June 2015
Ext.P2 : Will executed by Jermias in favour of Sarah, Vimala,
Santhamma, James and Lilly
Ext.P3 : copy of judgment in O.P(Succ)2/2015 of additional
munsiff court, Kollam
Ext.P4 : Will executed dated 10.06.2014 executed by Jermias in favour of
Annamma Johnson
Ext.P5 : Advocate notice dated 16.10.2015
Ext.P6 : Letter issued by complainant to the Manager, Quilon
Co-operative Urban bank Ltd.
Ext.P7 : postal receipt
Ext.P8 : FD deposit certificate issued from the Quilon Co-operative Urban
bank Ltd.No.960 dated 12.08.2018 in the name of Jermias for Rs.52200/- only
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-
DW1 : Mini S.
DW2 : Annamma Johnson
Documents marked for opposite party:-
Ext.D1 : letter issued by Mary Sophia Johnson dated 06.05.2015
to Manager , Co-operative Urban bank, Thevally branch
Ext.D2 : copy of ID proof
Ext.D3 : declaration
Ext.D4 : paper publication dated 13.05.2015
Ext.D5 : copy of letter issued in favour of branch manager,
Quilon Co-operative Bank, kollam branch
Ext.D6 : affidavit sworn filed by Mary Sophia in favour of Manager,
Quilon Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Ext.D7 : copy of letter issued in favour of Manager, Co-operative Urban
Bank dated 27.06.2015 by Mary Sophia
Ext.D8 series : FD deposit certificate No.10014/T for 55000/- in the name of
Jermias(FD deposit certificate issued from Quilon Co-operative
Uraban Bank Ltd.No.10012/T
Ext.D9 : application form
Ext.D10 : reply notice
Ext.D11 : circular
E.M.Muhammed Ibrabim:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
