BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of April, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.94/2008

Between

Complainant : Benny Varghese S/o Varghese,

Thuruthippalliyil House,

Murinjapuzha P.O.,Cheruvanthanam,

Idukki District.

And

Opposite Party : The Branch Manager,

South Indian Bank Limited.,

Peerumedu.

(By Adv:Baby Joseph)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESDIENT)

Complainants father Mr.T.A Varghese was expired on 20/04/2007 and a will was created by the diseased in favour of the complainant before the death. The Priest of the diocis of the complaint was called upon by the complainant's father and the will was written by the handwriting of the Priest of that 'Edavaka'. The diseased Varghese discussed the matter with the Priest of the Church Fr.Thomas Kuttipalackal and the will was written by the said Priest before the death of the diseased. There is a fixed deposit of the diseased in South India Bank Limited, Peerumedu Branch for Rs.6 lakhs. According to the will 1/3rd of the fixed deposit of the diseased is given to the complainant which is Rs.2,20,000/-. So after the death of the complainant's father on 03/07/2007, the complainant filed an application for withdrawing the amount. But the opposite party never disbursed the amount and no reply was given for complainant's application. The complainant when enquired about the matter, the opposite party harassed the complainant before the public. Complainant himself introduced his father in the said bank for opening the account. So this petition is filed against deficiency in service of the opposite party and also for compensation.
 

2. The opposite party filed written version and admitted that the father of the complainant Varghese Avira Thuruthippalliyil had 2 fixed deposits with the opposite party bank as Fixed Deposit No.120 and 121 for an amount of 2 lakhs each. These two deposits are in the joint name of Varghese and his wife Thresiamma. Both deposits are made on 05/10/2006 for a period of 36 months, they are due for payment only on 05/10/2009. Out of Fixed Deposit No.120, Varghese Avira and Thresiamma jointly took a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 06/03/2007 and is still outstanding. Varghese Avira and Thresiamma, also suggested nominees to the Fixed Deposits. In deposit No.120 the nominee is Brilly Varghese Mundaplackal, Vandanpathal P.O., Mundakkayam and in deposit No.121 the nominee is Rosamma Thomas, Tharayil House, Kuttikkanam P.O, Peerumedu. The complainant has no relationship with the opposite party and he is only a stranger to the bank. As per the banking rules and formalities envisaged in law, in the case of death of depositors, the right to discharge the deposit amount from the bank comes to the hands of nominees. The complainant is not a nominee in any of the F.D deposits of his father late Varghese. The right of the nominee arise only on the death of depositor or all the depositors. In this case F.D. No.120 and 121 are in the joint names of Varghese Avira and Thresiamma, Thresiamma is still alive. In case of death of all depositors as per the usual practice and law the bank will discharge the deposit amounts to the nominees as per the bank records. In case of any order from the court restraining the payment of deposits to the nominees, bank has to abide by such order or else, the nominees will collect the amount and disburse it between the claimants. Even if a will deed is in existence, the bank has no right to disburse the amount as per the will. Moreover as far as a nominee is considered, deposit never goes to the nominee as his personal property, but he is bound to divide the same among the legal heirs of the depositors as per the personal law governing to his religion, in the absence of a will. The opposite party is always ready and willing to disburse the amount to the remaining deposit holder Thresiamma or to the nominees in the bank records on receipt of proper directions from them. The complainant has no right to demand the opposite party to transfer the F.D. deposits in the name of Varghese Avira and Thresiamma in his own name as per the will.
 

3. 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?
 

4. The matter was heard from both sides before going to the evidence.
 

5. The POINT:- It is true and admitted that the bank has received an application from the complainant for the release of fixed deposit of his diseased father. One of the joint deposit holder Thresiamma is still alive, the bank informed about it to him through telephone. As per the opposite party they can act only as per the rules and regulations of the bank. The nominee is entitled to get the amount if any deposit holder expires. In this case the joint account holder is still alive who is the mother of the complainant.
 

Hence the petition dismissed. The complainant can approach appropriate Civil Court, or any other legal authority for considering his father's will, for the withdrawal of the money deposited by his father in the opposite party bank. The opposite party is directed to keep the fixed deposit of the petitioner's father, in abeyance for 3 months from the date of the receipt of this order. In the meantime the wife of the fixed deposit holder, mother of the petitioner can release the interest of the fixed deposit, if needed for her lively hood.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2009.

Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)