Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/143/2017

S.Kothundaram Age(64 Years) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syndicate Bank Main Branch Represented By Manager - Opp.Party(s)

party in person

11 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  28.08.2017

                                                                Order pronounced on:  11.01.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL - PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY THE 11^th  DAY OF JANUARY 2019

 

C.C.NO.143/2017

 

S.Kothandaram, Aged 64 years,

(Senior Citizen) At 4A, Jainagar

 17^th Street,Arumbakkam,

Chennai –  600 106.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

Syndicate Bank (Main Branch)

Represented by Manager,

Leelavathi Buildings,

No.69,Armenian Street,

Chennai -  600 001

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 23.10.2017

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in Person

 

Counsel for Opposite Party                     : M/s. P.Sreenivasulu, J.Srinivasan

 

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant  to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,07,945/- with interest 10% and  also  a sum of Rs.2,07,945/-  as compensation  for  mental agony  with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is the eldest representative of the deceased father, Sri.G.Sevathaiah, who had a social security deposit of Rs.5 Lakhs  bearing No.60004030001084/1 dated 14.03.2007 at Syndicate Bank, Main Branch, Armenian street, Chennai  - 600 001for  a period of three years. The deposit amount was paid to three claimants, said to be nominees, being complainant’s two younger siblings and  another one being the widow of  one of the younger brother’s Sibling  through Banaswadi Branch, Bangalore on 11.01.2017. The amount settled to the claimants was Rs.8,31,782-04, each   has paid  Rs.2,77,260-00 equally. The complainant got information from the bank and its appellate authorities through RTI applications. RTI reply received by him in connection with the deposit clearly and unambiguously stated that the deposit did not carry any nomination. The deceased father was the sole depositor and he did not nominate any one. The bank wrongfully paid the deposit money to three claimants as if they were nominees when they were not so. Therefore the bank has committed deficiency in service. The substance of filing the complaint is essentially drawn from the replies given by public information officers of the bank appointed under the Right to Information Act and contradictions found in their replies. The deposit was opened in the year 2007 at Chennai Branch and it was disbursed to the three claimants on 11.01.2017 at Banaswadi Branch at Bangalore. The succession proceeding was dismissed in XV Additional City Civil & Sessions Court,  Bangalore City by its order dated 21.01.2011 on the ground of non-maintainability.  First Chief Public Information Officer  had made a reply that the depositor did not nominate any one and later he turned around and said the there were three nominations. The complainant was not given an opportunity to examine the records on which basis the deposit was discharged. Chief Public Information Officer failed to attain the standard prescribed under law due to which damages have been caused to the complainant and the complainant has to be restored to the same position in which the complainant would have found himself  had the illegal act not been perpetrated by the bank and award the complainant a sum of  Rs.2,07,945/- (equal to one fourth share of the deposit)  with interest @ 10% from the date of deposit and also to pay Rs.2,07,945/- for Mental agony.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complaint is not maintainable.  There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party and the complainant is also not a customer of the opposite party. One M. Sevathaiah was the account holder having Savings Account No.6000-201-0060510 and SSDQ 6000-40-30001084 with the opposite party, the said person died leaving behind him Mr. Ravindran, Uma Maheswari, and Lakshmi . The said Sevathiah when alive on 14.03.2007 furnished particulars of  his nominees and the above said persons were nominees. The opposite party is maintaining nomination register bearing registration No.2208 dated 15.03.2007 in which the names of the above said persons were found as nominees, but not the name of the complainant. After the death of Sevathaiah, at the request of the said nominees the amounts lying in opposite party  bank is transferred to Bansavadi Branch at Bangalore and they had withdrawn the amount and shared among themselves equally. The complainant has not disputed the status of the nominees of Late. Sevathiah. The complainant has to prove that he is one of the legal heirs. The complainant failed to implead  all the nominees  and also the Syndicate Bank, Bansavadi  Branch. The complainant is not a consumer. The amount had been disbursed already at Bangalore Branch and there is no jurisdiction and limitation for the complainant to file the complaint before this forum. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer?

          2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO : 1

          The case of the complainant is that he is the eldest legal heir of Mr.Sevathaiah.   Mr.Sevathaiah  died leaving a deposit of  Rs.8,10,524.94  in  Fixed Deposit  and Rs.21,257.10 in Saving Bank A/c. in the year 2007.  The amounts were transferred to their Bank  at Bansavadi  Branch in Bangalore, where the amount was disbursed to the  persons said to be nominees namely Ravindran, Devi Uma Maheswari and S.Lakshmi  in the year 2017. There are contradictions found in the reply from opposite party regarding the nomination and the complainant representing himself as the legal heir of Sevathiah claims for deficiency in service against opposite party for their alleged negligent act and for loss.

5. The complainant sought the information from Syndicate Bank, Banaswadi Branch, Bangalore under Right to Information Act and its reply and then the appeal to central public information officer and their reply and appeal under RTI Act to Legal Department at Head Office, Manipal and the reply to the same and also regarding the information of fixed deposit and the account of Mr.Sevathaiah and its particulars are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A13. Ex.A14 is the  Dismissal Order by   XV  Additional City Civil and Sessions  Court, Bangalore for the petition filed under section 372 of  Indian Succession Act, wherein the complainant’s name is found as the 2^nd petitioner, and there is a mention in the averments in the said petition as stated in the order in Ex.A14 as the 2^nd petitioner  had received an amount of  2 lakhs after the demise of Sevathiah. From the order in Ex.A14 it is inferred, there was a complicated question with regard to shares involved in that case and there was a dispute among the sharers regarding the share. Prior to the filing of this complaint Notice was issued to opposite party by the complainant on 24.04.2017.  The Complainant’s Application to Thasildar, Chennai-31 for issuance of legal heir certificate and the reply and circular for issuance of legal heir certificate through on line are submitted in Ex.A16 to Ex.A18.

          6.  From the documents submitted by the complainant herein, it is inferred that Mr. Sevathaiah had an account at Syndicate bank at Chennai, he died intestate, the deposit made by him was transferred from Chennai Branch to Bansawadi Branch at Bangalore and admittedly it was disbursed in the year 2017 to the persons who were said to be nominees. Based on the notice issued in the year 2017, this complaint is being filed by the complainant.  It is not an existing account and   based on the same, the complainant claims damages for the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and   the opposite party. The Complainant had not availed any service from the opposite party. There is no proof that he is the beneficiary of such service from opposite party under the deposit holder. There is no proof that the disputed matter regarding legacy has reached finality.  Also fixed deposit & other payment was disbursed and got over in the year 2017 itself. The remedy for the complainant regarding the disputed matter cannot be decided before this forum .Section  2(1) (d) of Consumer Act reads as:

(d) “Consumer” means any person who:

         (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

         (ii) ‘(hire or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who ‘(hires or avails of) the services for  consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person 2 (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose);

            3 (Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.)

As such, the  complainant has no locus standi  to file the complaint, since he does not come under the purview of Consumer as decided in earlier paragraph. The opposite party had not rendered any service to the complainant.   Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Point No 1. is answered accordingly.

07. POINT NO: 2  & 3

          As we have decided in point No;1 that the complainant is not a consumer and he could not maintain the complaint before this forum, we need not discuss about the point 2 and as such the complaint is to be dismissed and point No.3 is answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 11^th day of  January 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 18.10.2011                            RTI Petition

 

 

Ex.A2 dated 15.11.2011                            Reply by PIO/DGM, R.O.Bangalore in ref

                                                              1743/0479/ROB

 

 

Ex.A3 dated 28.11.2011                            My appeal petition dated 28.11.2011 to

                                                              GM/personal and legal, H.O.Manipal

 

Ex.A4 dated 27.12.2011                            Appeal order ref 8915/0028/RTI/1^st

                                                              Appeal/KKS dated 27.12.2011

 

Ex.A5 dated 13.01.2012                            Further reply by PIO/DGM, R.O.,

                                                               Bangalore in ref 127/0479/ROB/RTI/2012

 

Ex.A6 dated 29.08.2013

And 18.09.2013                                RTI petition        

 

Ex.A7 dated 07.10.2013                            Reply by PIO/DGM, Regional Office,

                                                             Chennai in ref 1147/ROCH/PLAN/2013/RTI  

 

Ex.A8 dated 16.10.2013                            My appeal petition

 

Ex.A9 dated 21.10.2013                            Reply by the Appellate Authority, Regional

                                                              Office, Chennai ref no

                                                              1202/ROCH/PLAN/2013/RTI

 

Ex.A10 dated 28.01.2017                          RTI petition

 

Ex.A11 dated 27.02.2017                          Reply by the PIO/DGM, R.O., Bangalore in

                                                              ref 0479/ROB/LC/CGU/037/RTI/2017

 

Ex.A12 dated 20.03.2017                          My appeal petition

 

Ex.A13 dated 11.04.2017                          Reply by FGM, R.O., Bangalore in ref

                                                              6192/FGM/RTI/2016

 

Ex.A14 dated 21.01.2011                          Order by the XV Additional City Civil and

                                                               Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in

                                                               P & SC 157/2007

 

Ex.A15 dated 24.04.2017                          Notice issued to the opposite party prior to

                                                              filing of complaint    

 

Ex.A16 dated NIL                                      My application for a certificate of legal heirs

 

 

 

 

Ex.A17 dated 01.09.2017                          Reply by the Tahsildar, Amaidakarai in her

                                                                letter ref Na Ka C2/3756/2017  

 

Ex.A18 dated 09.08.2017                          Circular no 11/2017 dated 09.08.2017 of

                                                               Revenue Administration, Disaster

                                                                Management and Mitigation Department

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                                ….. NIL …….

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT