DATE OF FILING : 19.8.2011

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26^th day of September, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.182/2011

Between

Complainants : 1. Abraham, S/o Paulose,

Chullickal House,

Thadiyampadu P.O.,

Idukki District.

2. Leelamma, W/o Goerge,

Acharukudiyil House,

Maniyarankudi P.O.,

Idukki District.

(Both by Adv:Biju Vasudevan)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Branch Manager,

Idukki District Co-operative Bank,

Idukki Branch,

Idukki Colony P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: C.K. Babu)

2. Molly, W/o Thankachan,

Poovathinkal House,

Madakkathanam P.O.,

Kappu, Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The case is filed by the complainant on behalf of his mother Smt.Mariyamma, W/o Paulose, Chullickal House, Thadiyampadu P.O., Idukki. It is filed for getting direction to withdraw the fixed deposit of the mother of the complainant, Smt.Mariyamma, W/o Paulose, who is having a fixed deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- in the 1^st opposite party bank. That was deposited for the livelihood of the said Smt.Mariyamma by her husband Late Mr. Paulose. The said Mariyama is now laid up and hospitalised due to fracture in her leg, at District Hospital, Idukki. More than about Rs.20,000/- has been spent for the treatment expenses of the mother of the complainant. More than about Rs.30,000/- is again needed for the treatment of her. The 2^nd opposite party is the sister of the complainant. She is forcibly keeping the

(cont.....2)

- 2 -

Savings Bank account pass book and cheque book of the said Mariyamma. While the complainant approached with his mother Smt. Mariyamma, at the opposite party's bank for withdrawing the fixed deposit, on 11.8.2011, the 1^st opposite party informed that a petition has been filed by the 2^nd opposite party objecting for the withdrawal of the said amount and it is quite illegal so this petition is filed for giving direction to the 2^nd opposite party to produce the account pass book and cheque leaves issued to the said Mariyamma before this Forum and also for withdrawing the amount in the account of the said Mariyamma to her.

2. As per the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party, the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party is the sister of the complainant. The only dispute is between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party in order to get the amount deposited in the name of their mother at the 1^st opposite party bank. It is admitted that the said Mariyamma had deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 4.7.2011 as fixed deposit in the 1^st opposite party bank and an amount of Rs.2,745/- also in the Savings Bank account of the said Mariyamma. Several times the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party approached the bank for getting back the fixed deposit in the name of the mother. But without the knowledge and consent or authorisation of the said Mariyamma, the 1^st opposite party was not ready to withdraw the amount to them. The interest of the fixed deposit also cannot be disbursed if it is withdrawn within that period. The petition is filed for getting fixed deposit of the age old mother of the complainant. The opposite party is always ready to disburse the amount to the said Mariyamma if an application duly signed with Fixed Deposit receipt produces before the bank. The opposite party is not aware whether the amount has been deposited for the livelihood of the said Mariyamma and whether the amount is claimed for the treatment expenses of the said Mariyamma. The opposite party never issued any cheque leaves to the said Mariyamma and neither the complainant nor the 2^nd opposite party approached the opposite party bank for getting the money for the treatment expenses of the said Mariyamma. So the opposite party suspected the bonafide of this petition. So there is no deficiency from the part of the 1^st opposite party.

3. The 2^nd opposite party filed written version stating that the complainant is not at all authorised to file a case before this Forum on behalf of his mother Smt. Mariyamma. The said Mariyamma is never authorised the complainant to file such a complaint. As per the will prepared by the father of the 2^nd opposite party, 10 cents of land and the residential building there is entitled for the 1^st complainant after the death of the mother. It is also written in the will that 1 cent of property in the city and a building there in are in the name of the mother and the mother can transfer it as her wish. But the complainant forcibly got the signature of the mother and the property was sold out for an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- and in that amount Rs.1,40,000/- has been

(cont.....3)

- 3 -

wilfully withheld with him. The balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited in the name of the mother as fixed deposit. The 1^st complainant is mentally and physically harassing the mother continuously. So that she was treated for the same. If the Fixed Deposit amount has been disbursed in the name of the 1^st complainant, the 1^st complainant will never care the mother after the same. Moreover, the 2^nd opposite party has been given a gift of 2½ sovereign of gold to the mother and that was also retained by the 1^st complainant. The mother of the complainant fell down and fracture has been caused on her leg and she was admitted in the District Hospital for treatment. So the 1^st complainant is trying to get the amount in his name and not for the treatment of the mother. The amount has been deposited in the name of the mother for 1 year and the nominee of the said deposit is the 2^nd opposite party, the 2^nd complainant and the elder brother. The fixed deposit pass book and certificates were given to the mother in front of the 2^nd complainant and also an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been given to the 2^nd complainant for the treatment of the mother by the 2^nd opposite party on 5.9.2011. The interest from the fixed deposit amount can be released for the person who look after the mother upto the death of the mother, otherwise it will cause irreparable loss to the mother. The 1^st complainant is duly bound to look after the mother because the entire property and the residential building has been written in the name of him after the death of the mother. If the fixed deposit amount is disbursed in the name of the complainant, the amount will be spent by the complainant for the sake of him and irreparable loss will be happened to the mother.

4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. No oral evidence adduced by both the parties. Heard.

6. The POINT :- On perusing the complaint and written version, it is very clear that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. The complainant never deposited any amount to the 1^st opposite party and the complainant is not having any account in the opposite party. Eventhough it is stated that the case is filed on behalf of the mother, Smt.Mariyamma, W/o Paulose, no authorisation has been filed for the same. It is very clear from the written version of the 2^nd opposite party that the mother of the complainant never entrusted the 1^st complainant to file this compliant before this Forum and it is also stated that the fixed deposit receipt is with the mother and the nominee of the same is the 2^nd complainant, 2^nd opposite party and one elder brother of the 1^st complainant. As per the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party, it is stated that no cheque leaf has been issued in the name of the mother of the complainant. Moreover, the 1^st opposite party is ready and willing to disburse the entire fixed deposit amount to the holder of the fixed deposit Smt. Mariyamma, if the relevant documents are producing before the bank for getting the same. So there is no

(cont....4)

- 4 -

deficiency has been proved against the opposite parties and so we think that the only dispute is the sharing of the property of the complainant's family and it is absolutely a civil matter and this Forum lacks jurisdiction to try the same. It is absolutely not comes under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26^th day of September, 2011

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Nil.