By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case is that the complainant is a student. When she was 15 years of old her mother subscribed one kuri in the name of her at 1st respondent firm. The said kuri was prized to complainant on 15.5.02 and the complainant was entitled to get Rs.27,000/-. On the request of first respondent the amount was deposited at 2nd respondent bank and lien was noted. Some unfilled signed forms were obtained from the mother of complainant by first respondent. The mother of complainant remitted 55 instalments at first respondent firm and the kuri was terminated on 15.7.05. She had failed to remit 5 instalments just before termination of the kuri. The mother of complainant applied to get the balance amount after adjusting the deposit amount of Rs.27,000/- and its interest and also the 5 instalments which were remained unpaid. But no amount was given by stating that the amount of Rs.27,000/- was paid to the mother on 4.7.02 and the deposit amount of Rs.25,000/- in which lien was noted was adjusted towards the another liability of complainant in which she was a guarantor for the kuri of one Rajan. These averments in the notice of first respondent are utterly false and complainant is entitled to get the amount sought along with interest. The prize amount of Rs.27,000/- is entirely belonging to the complainant and no other person has any right in it. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter of first respondent is that when the complainant was minor the mother of her subscribed one kuri in the name of minor complainant. Since she was minor the amount entitled by the minor was given to her mother. A receipt also issued by the mother. On that day itself the mother of minor deposited Rs.25,000/- at 2nd respondent bank and lien was noted and transferred to this respondent. At that time one kuri security agreement was executed by the mother and accordingly if any liability is there in the name of mother or as a guarantor the deposit amount will be liable for the same. The mother of complainant Radhika Menon was a guarantor for the kuri auctioned by Sri. K.P. Rajan and he had committed default in payment of kuri instalments. So a suit was filed before Thrissur Munsiff Court as OS.981/02 and it was decreed. As per the terms of the kuri security agreement the amount in fixed deposit was adjusted. This complaint is filed by the complainant and her mother on collusion. If the complainant has any contention that her mother acted against the welfare of her at the time of minor she should file complaint against her mother. The deposit was made by the mother directly and there is no practice of depositing amount by this respondent. No unfilled forms and papers were accepted from the mother of complainant. There is no deficiency in service from this respondent. Hence dismiss.
3. The version of 2nd respondent is that as per the request of Radhika Menon, the mother of complainant the deposit amount of Rs.25,000/- was accepted for 37 months. As per her request a lien was noted towards first respondent. All these acts were done according to the request of Radhika Menon. The first respondent and Radhika Menon were applied for the same to this respondent. The complainant did not deposit any amount at this respondent. Hence dismiss.
4. The points for consideration are:
(1) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the amount sought?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence consists of oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1, Exts. P1 to P13, Exts. R1 to R7 and Ext. X-1.
6. Points: The complaint is filed to get Rs.24,500/- and interest for the amount Rs.27,000/- along with compensation. It is the case that when the complainant was minor her mother Radhika Menon subscribed one chit in the name of her at first respondent kuri company and it was prized. As per the request of first respondent the amount was deposited at 2nd respondent bank and lien was noted. When the minor complainant became major she wanted to get the amount along with interest. For this purpose this complaint is filed. The first respondent denied the case of complainant and stated that the amount was deposited and lien was noted only on the request of mother of complainant and there is no demand on their part. The said amount was adjusted towards the liability existing in the name of mother of complainant as a guarantor in a kuri auctioned by Sri. K.P. Rajan. It is the version of 2nd respondent that the mother of complainant and first respondent requested for depositing the amount and amount was deposited and lien was noted. They clearly stated that no amount was deposited by the complainant at 2nd respondent bank.
7. Ext. X-1 is the fixed deposit receipt on the strength of which the complainant is claiming the amount. According to the complainant it was deposited in her name when the kuri subscribed in her name was prized. It can be seen that as per Ext. X-1 the deposit holder is Radhika Ramakrishnan the mother of complainant. There is no averment about the deposit for and on behalf of minor Praseetha. Ext. X-1 clearly shows that Radhika Ramakrishnan deposited the amount on 4.7.02. it is the case of complainant in the complaint that the first respondent wanted to deposit the prized amount at 2nd respondent bank in the name of minor and the mother of complainant accepted the same. But as per Ext. X-1 the deposit was not in the name of minor Praseetha. The complainant produced Exts. P1 to P13 documents out of which, Ext. P1 is the passbook of the prized kuri. It is in the name of Praseetha and it was prized. So it can be considered that the prized amount in the name of Praseetha was deposited by her mother in the name of mother herself.
8. The contention of first respondent that as per the kuri agreement executed between Radhika Menon and kuri company, the company has right to adjust the amount towards the liability of her. Accordingly the amount was taken for the liability of one K.P. Rajan. But no kuri agreement is produced by first respondent to prove this claim. The company has produced the copy of judgement and decree in O.S.981/02 in which Radhika Radhakrishnan is the 4th defendant. Even if the address is different the complainant has no case that the 4th respondent is not her mother. When RW1 is examined it is admitted that it is correct that the kuri agreement of K.P. Rajan should be produced to see the relation with the amount involved in his case and that agreement. But that agreement is not produced. It is his version that the complainant and her mother were come to the company for accepting the amount. It is the case of complainant that Ext. X-1 amount is solely belonging to the complainant and the lien was noted for repayment of kuri amount for the kuri which was standing in her name. It is admitted by RW1 and also stated that the lien was noted not for kuri security towards the kuri of Rajan who was first defendant in O.S.981/02.
9. The claim of complainant is to get back Ext. X-1 amount after deducting the amount due from her. Ext. P13 is the passbook of her kuri at first respondent kuri company. The said kuri was subscribed by her mother for and on behalf of her when she was minor. The first respondent is well aware about the same. The amount stated in Ext. X-1 is completely and solely belonging to complainant Praseetha. It cannot be adjusted for the liability of mother of complainant because the money belonging to minor only. The first respondent is very well aware about it. Even if the name of mother is written in Ext. X-1 it is the money prized out of the kuri stands in the name of minor. So the act of first respondent in adjusting the amount towards the liability of some other person is a serious deficiency in service on their part. So they are liable to return Ext. X-1 amount along with interest as stated by the complainant. The company can reduce the 5 instalment amount out of the same. So the company can reduce Rs.2500/- from this amount and they cannot liable to take interest for Rs.2500/- because of the deficiency in service committed. The prayer of complainant is to direct the respondent to give her the amount. But Ext. X-1 stands in the name of Radhika Ramakrishnan. The act of bank in not releasing the amount is not a deficiency in service. It is true that no evidence is adduced by 2nd respondent to show that on whose request the amount was deposited. Since the lien was noted in the name of first respondent they may release the amount to first respondent. According to us there is no deficiency in service on the part of 2nd respondent. But the first respondent is liable to return the amount.
10. In the result the complaint is allowed and the first respondent is directed to return Ext. X-1 amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint ie. on 2.1.06 till realization within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The first respondent can reduce the 5 instalment amounts out of Ext. X-1 amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 7th day of March 2013.
