By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member.
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. It is averred that the daughter of the complainant Smt. Rajeena had married with Moyikkal Riyas and in that wedlock a child named Muhammed Ameen was born. The child was born with Autism, Cerebral Palsy and multiple disabilities. The mother of the minor has died on 26/06/2000. Immediately after the death of mother, father of the child was left the place. Thereafter whereabouts of the father of the child was not known to anybody. So the complainant and his wife look after the child.The child was bed ridden throughout his life. The complainant was appointed as the legal guardian of the child and his wife Jameela was also appointed as co guardian of master Muhammed Ameen by the District collector, Malappuram by virtue of provisions of National Tru. It is averred that the District Collector is the Chairman of Local Level Committee under National Trust Act. The Committee was constituted by virtue of power given under National Trust Act, 1999 for the protection person and property of individuals with Autism, Cerebral Palsy and multiple disabilities etc. On 03/03/2016 the complainant being the grandfather and legally appointed guardian of master Muhammed Ameen, had made a fixed deposit for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the bank of the opposite party in the name Person with Disability. Moreover the complainant also opened a SB account in the name of the child having credit balance of Rs. 6,11,184/- as on 03/10/2022. All the above deposits were made by the complainant as the legal guardian of the “Person with Disability” child from his own earnings and disposing his properties , with an intention for the maintenance of the child and also intended not to create a burden to others on account of the Person with Disability after his death. But unfortunately the child was died during the life time of the complainant. The Person with Disability was died on 23/05/2021.The complainant was also the nominee of the above deposits. After demise of Person with Disability, the complainant had approached the opposite party to withdraw the above deposits. It is averred that the complainant is the nominee and legal guardian of the child and got every right to withdraw the deposit. But the opposite party declined to release the amount. So the complainant approached District Local Level Committee for getting an order for withdrawal of the amount. The District Local Level Committee after elaborate consideration issued an order on 25/08/2022 and directed the opposite party to release the deposits along with interest to the complainant, who was the legal guardian of deceased Muhamemd Ameen appointed by the above said committee. But the opposite party did not release the amount to the complainant. According to the complainant the nominee of the depositor is entitled to receive the deposits after the death of the account holder. It is pleaded that the complainant had approached the opposite party for several times. But the opposite party did not heed the lawful demand of the complainant. The act of the opposite party is unfair and actionable under law. On 02/11/2022 the complainant had issued a notice to the opposite party demanding to release the deposited amount. But the opposite party continued their negligent attitude towards the complainant.The complainant alleged that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service causing metal agony, pain and inconvenience to the complainant. So the opposite party is liable to pay compensation. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to refund the term deposit receipt No. 8894148369-6 dated 03/03/2016 for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- with its interest to the complainant. The complainant also prayed for a direction to the opposite party to refund entire credit balance with interest in SB account No. 35611068241 to the complainant. The complainant also demanded cost of the proceedings from the opposite party.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed version.
3. The opposite party is the State Bank of India, Nilambur branch represented by its branch manager. It is contended that the National Trust Act, 1999 is meant for the protection of person and property of individuals with Autism, Cerebral Palsy and Multiple Disability. As per the provisions of the said act, the Local Level Committee constituted is the competent authority to appoint legal guardian and to issue directions or orders with regard to the property of such persons while they are alive. By the death of such person the powers of Local Level Committee will come to an end. Thereafter general law is applicable to the legal heirs. It is contended that the amount deposited by any person in the name of a person, who is a person having disability comes under the purview of National Trust Act. After the death of Person with Disability, the property become the property of all of his legal heirs. So the legal heirs are entitled to receive the deposited amount jointly. It is further contended that all the legal hires can either jointly receive or jointly authorize one of them to receive the said deposit or property. The opposite party admitted that Rs. 10 lakhs deposited in the name of deceased Muhmmmed Ameen who was a person with disability. It is further stated that some amount was also kept in the SB account. It is contended by the opposite party that the complainant had never approached them with any written request for withdrawal of the amount in the name of Person with Disability. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant had made oral request for the release of said amount. But the complainant did not produce legal heirship certificate of the deceased and failed to comply required documents and did not comply the formalities for the withdrawal of deposit amount. It is stated by the opposite party that they are ready to release the said amount if the complainant is ready to comply legal formalities. It is contended that by the death of person with disability, the jurisdiction of the Local Level Committee will come to an end and any order made by the said Committee after the death of Person with Debility have no effect at all. There is no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.
4. The complainant and the opposite parties have filed affidavits in lieu of evidence. The documents of the complainant is marked as Ext.A1 to A9. Ext. A1 document is the copy of order dated 31/08/2021 issued by Local Level Committee, Malapuram district. Ext.A2 document is the copy of order dated 25/08/2022 issued by Local Level Committee, Malappuram district.Ext.A3 document is the copy of order dated 24/03/2016 issued by Local Level Committee, Malappuram District. Ext.A4 document is the copy of certificate of appointment of legal guardian dated 05/01/2016. Ext. A5 document is the copy of death certificate of Person with Disability. Ext. A6 document is the copy of term deposit receipt dated 03/03/2016. Ext. A7 document is the copy of statement of account from 01/04/2020 to 31/03/2021 of Person with Disability. Ext.A8 document is the copy of statement of account from 01/04/2021 to 31/03/2022. Ext. A9 document is the copy of legal notice dated 02/11/2022 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. There is no document availed from the side of opposite party.
5. Heard both sides in detail. Perused documents and affidavit thoroughly. The Commission considered following points to adjudicate the matter:-
- Whether the act of the opposite party is amounted to deficiency in service?
- Relief and cost?
6. Point No. (i) and (ii)
The Commission is considering point number (i) and (ii) together as those are inter related. The case of the complainant is that he had been appointed as guardian of Muhammed Ameen who was a Person with Disability. The said appointment was made by Local Level Committee executed on the basis of provisions envisaged under National Trust Act, 1999. The complainant has produced Ext. A4 document to prove his pleadings. The opposite party also admitted appointment of complainant as the legal guardian of the said Person with Disability. On the basis of appointment the complainant had deposited 10,00,000/- rupees in the name of Person with Disability with the bank of the opposite party. The complainant has produced Ext. A6 document to prove his pleadings. More over the complainant also operated an SB account in favour of the Person with Disability thereto. The complainant has produced Ext.A7 and A8 documents in that regard. Unfortunately the Person with Disability died on 23/05/2021. The complainant had produced Ext. A5 document in that regard. The Commission also find that the opposite party did not challenge Ext.A5, A6, A7 and A8 documents produced by the complainant.
7. After the death of Person with Disability, the complainant had approached the opposite party to release the term deposit amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and the amount kept in the SB account .But the opposite party rejected the demand of the complainant even though the complainant submitted Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 documents before the opposite party. It is argued that the act of the opposite party is amounted to deficiency in service causing mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant.
8. The argument of the complainant is revolved around Ext.A1 and Ext. A2 documents. According to the complainant, the Person with Disability was born with Autism to her daughter named Rajeena who married with Moyikkal Riyas. After the birth of Person with Disability, Rajeena died soon after her death father of the Person with Disability left the place. Now the whereabouts of the father of Person with Disability is unknown to the complainant. Being the grandfather of the Person with Disability, the complainant and his wife look after the Person with Disability. On the basis of Ext. A3 document. The property of the Person with Disability was sold out and thereafter sale proceeds were deposited in the bank of the opposite party on the basis of Ext. A3 and A4 documents. It is argued that the complainant was compelled to issue Ext. A7 notice to the opposite party but no action was taken. Hence the complainant has approached before this Commission.
9. On the other hand the opposite party has argued that so far no written request was submitted by the complainant. It is further argued that the opposite party is not bound to act in accordance with Ext. A1 and A2 documents issued by the Local Level Committee which was constituted under National Trust Act, 1999. After the death of Person with Disability named Muhammed Ameen the power of the Local level Committee was lost forever and the property or deposit of the Person with Disability goes in favour of his legal heirs. So the complainant had to submit legal heirship certificate before the opposite party. But the complainant did not produce legal heirship certificate even though the opposite party demanded on several occasions. Moreover the complainant had to produce letter of authorization executed by other legal heirs before the opposite party. It is further argued by the opposite party that grandmother of the deceased Person with Disability was also appointed as co guardian. Moreover the whereabouts of the father of deceased Person with Disability was not submitted by the complainant. It is stated by the opposite party that they are ready to release the entire amount to the complainant if the complainant is ready to produce required document as per the law.
10. In the evaluation of evidence, it has come out in evidence that the complainant has failed to prove that Ext.A1 and A2 documents are valid documents to release the deposited amount from the opposite party. The Commission also find that after the death of Person with Disability the local level committee constituted under National Trust Act, 1999 has no role to play in deciding legal heirship of the deceased. The complainant also failed to produce any document to show the present status of father of the deceased. It is contended by the opposite party that the complainant had failed to produce legal heirship certificate before them. There is no argument from the side of the complainant that he had submitted required documents before the opposite party except Ext. A1 and A2 documents. In this juncture, the Commission find that the complainant is not competent to withdraw the amount deposited in the bank of the opposite party after the death of Person with Disability. There is no merit in the complaint hence it is dismissed.
Dated this 30th day of April, 2024.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A9
Ext.A1: Copy of order dated 31/08/2021 issued by Local Level Committee,
Malapuram district.
Ext.A2: Copy of order dated 25/08/2022 issued by Local Level Committee,
Malappuram district.
Ext A3: Copy of order dated 24/03/2016 issued by Local Level Committee,
Malappuram District.
Ext A4: Copy of certificate of appointment of legal guardian dated 05/01/2016.
Ext A5: Copy of death certificate of Person with Disability.
Ext.A6: Copy of term deposit receipt dated 03/03/2016.
Ext.A7: Copy of statement of account from 01/04/2020 to 31/03/2021 of Person with
Disability.
Ext.A8: Copy of statement of account from 01/04/2021 to 31/03/2022.
Ext.A9: Copy of legal notice dated 02/11/2022 issued by the complainant to the
opposite party. There is no document availed from the side of opposite
party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
