This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      24-03-11 in the presence of Sri J.Nageswara Rao, advocate for complainants and of Sri P.Sanath Kumar, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:

                   This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant with a request to direct the opposite party to pay MIS amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest accrued thereon under A/c.No.8380 of Post Master, Kothapet, Guntur and also for compensation and costs.

2.      The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                The complainants 1, 2 and 3 are the daughters and 4^th complainant is the daughter-in-law, 5^th and 6^th complainants are the grand children of deceased Malugu Satyanarayana and Malugu Satyavathi.  During their life time, Malugu Satyanarayana and Malugu Satyavathi deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with the opposite party through Sub-Post Master, Kothapet, Guntur under monthly income scheme with pass book A/c.No.8380 on 10-08-05.  While so,  Malugu Satyanarayana died intestate on 20-05-08 leaving behind his wife Satyavathi, daughters, complainants 1 to 3 herein and son Malugu Vijaya Kumar as his family members and legal heirs.  Subsequently, Malugu Satyavathi also died on 28-03-09 and Malugu Vijaya Kumar died intestate on 18-01-09 leaving behind complainants 4, 5 and 6 being the wife and children as his legal heirs.

                Thus, the complainants became legal representatives and family members of deceased Malugu Satyanarayana and Malugu Satyavathi, who were the depositors.  Thereafter, the complainants approached opposite party for settlement of claim.  Inspite of repeated reminders, demands, approaches and persuasions, the opposite party did not settle the claim so far. The complainants have already furnished all the relevant papers i.e., death certificate and family member certificate of depositors and that of Malugu Vijaya Kumar but of no avail.  Therefore, irrespective of legitimate right conferred upon the complainants, the opposite party did not choose to settle the claim and thereby committed deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The opposite party filed its version, which in brief as follows:

                It is submitted by opposite party that it is monthly income scheme account bearing No.8380 with initial deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- with monthly interest of Rs.1335/- paid for 42 months stands opened on 10-08-05 at Kothapet SO, Guntur by Sri Malugu Satyanarayana and Smt.Malugu Satyavathi as account under Joint ‘B’ type.  The date of last transaction made in the account is 10-02-09.  The depositors had not made any nomination in respect of account either at the time of opening or subsequently. Both the depositors namely Sri M.Satyanarayana and Smt.M.Satyavathi reported to have died on            20-05-08 and 28-03-09 respectively.

                If there is no nomination and also if the amount of claim exceeds Rs.1,00,000/- the claimant/claimants has/have to submit Succession Certificate from a competent court of law or probate of will or letters of Administration of Estate of the deceased – vide rule 87(1) (c) of POSB Manual Volume-I.  On production of such legal evidence with required documents, the claim will be settled by the Post Master, Guntur HO.  The complainants have not submitted any claim documents either at Kothapet SO or at Office of the Supt. of Post Offices.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.             Both parties have filed their respective affidavits.  Ex.A1 to  A6 are marked on behalf of opposite party.  No documents are marked on behalf of opposite party.                      

5.      Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.      POINTS 1 & 2

                The complainants being the daughter-in-law and grand children have claimed for deposit amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited by late Mr.Satyanarayana and late Smt.Satavathi through Sub-Post Master, Kothapet, Guntur under monthly income scheme with pass book A/c.No.8380 on 10-08-05 without making any nomination.

                The contention of opposite party is that they would issue the said amount on production of succession certificate from a competent court of law.  According to rule 87(1)(c) of POSB Manual Volume-I

                “If the claim exceeds Rs.1,00,000/- the claimant should be advised to obtain a succession certificate from a competent court of law or produce the porobate of a will or letter of Administration of Estate of the deceased”

                The opposite party is bound to follow the rule position while dealing with such deposit amounts.  Not taking a lenient view does not amount to deficiency of service. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party as per Rule 87(1)(c) of POSB Manual Volume-I.  The complainants may get the deposit amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on production of succession certificate.  

                In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 25^th day of March, 2011.

          MEMBER                               MEMBER                           PRESIDENT        

   APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral evidence is adduced on either side

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainants:

For Opposite party :     NIL

                                                                                         PRESIDENT