Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the 1^st opposite party for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- with accrued interest; Rs.10,000/- as damages for mental agony and suffering and for costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        One Dachepalli Rama Devi (depositor) is elder sister of the complainant and wife of the 2^nd opposite party.   The complainant and 12 others on 28-08-08 sold 270 sq. yards situated in survey No.315/2 of Chebrolu village to one Sanka Nagaraju and Kundeti Durga Prasad. The said Rama Devi had no issues.   The said Rama Devi was more affectionate towards the complainant since childhood.   From out of the said sale proceeds the said Rama Devi on 29-08-08 deposited her share as well as complainant’s share with the 1^st opposite party in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under one fixed deposit receipt in her name for a period of twelve months.   The said Rama Devi nominated the complainant under the said fixed deposit receipt.   The said Rama Devi had been renewing the period after maturity. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party after the demise of her sister and requested them orally to pay the amount to him being nominee.   The 1^st opposite party without processing complainant’s claim gave evasive replies contending that consent of the 2^nd opposite party is necessary.   The 1^st opposite party even after submitting required information was reluctant to settle the claim and it amounted to deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be allowed.               

3.  The contention of the 1^st opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

        The 1^st opposite party is not a consumer and there is no triable consumer dispute and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.   The 1^st opposite party is not aware of the relationship of the complainant with the depositor as averred in the complaint and source of the deposited amount.   One Dachepalli Rama Devi wife of Dasaradha Rama Mohan Rao on 29-08-08 deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with the 1^st opposite party for a period of twelve months and the same was matured on 29-08-09.   The depositor nominated the complainant as nominee and the same was entered in the nomination register maintained by the 1^st opposite party.   The said deposit was being renewed every year.   While things stood thus, husband of the depositor and the complainant informed the death of the depositor and made rival claims.   In view of rival claims the 1^st opposite party advised both parties to obtain necessary orders from competent court.   Under those circumstances, the 1^st opposite party is unable to disburse the amount and as such did not commit any deficiency of service. The 1^st opposite party is willing to pay the maturity amount to the person (s) as directed by this Forum.  The complainant is bad for misjoinder of parties as the 1^st opposite party is not a necessary and proper party.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.    The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

        The sale consideration of Dachepalli Rama Devi under the sale deeds referred to in the complaint was Rs.9,271/- (=4619+4052).   The contention of the complainant that his share amount was also deposited in the name of the said Rama Devi is against the principles of the prohibition of Benami Transaction Act.  The complainant had fair opportunity to deposit his amount in his own name and failed to explain how he was benami to the said Rama Devi.   The nomination in the deposit receipt did not confer any right exclusively in the complaint.  It is well established principle that nominee is only a trustee but not a sole monarch heir.   The 2^nd opposite party is a legal heir to the said Rama Devi who died intestate.   The complainant cannot claim as legal heir to the said Rama Devi when the 2^nd opposite party is alive.   The deficiency of service, if any, is by the 1^st opposite party.   The complainant in order to evade succession certificate from competent authority approached this Forum with a malafide intention.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.       

5.   Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Ex.B-1 on behalf of the complainant and                  1^st opposite party were marked respectively.  No documents were marked on behalf of 2^nd opposite party.

6.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are these:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer and there is any triable consumer dispute?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and if so by whom?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
4. To what relief?

7.   Admitted facts in this complaint are these:

        a.  One Dachepalli Ramadevi wife of Dasaradh Ramamohan Rao                        on 29-08-08 deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with the 1^st opposite                    party for a period of one year (Ex.A-2).

        b.  The said depositor had been renewing the deposit after                               maturity.

        c. The complainant and the 2^nd opposite party are younger                                brother and husband of the said Ramadevi respectively.

        d. The said Ramadevi nominated the complainant as his nominee              (Ex.A-3).

e. The said Ramadevi died on 26-12-11 (Ex.A-1).

f. The complainant being nominee approached the 1^st opposite                  party to settle his claim under Ex.A-2.  

8.   POINT No.1:-    There was a relationship of consumer and service provider between the depositor Rama Devi and the 1^st opposite party.   The complainant being a nominee under the said fixed deposit receipt (Ex.A-2) comes under the purview of Section 2(b)(v) of Consumer Protection Act.   The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that it could not disburse the proceeds of the said fixed deposit receipt in view of rival claim by the 2^nd opposite party.   Whether the said contention of the 1^st opposite party is unfair or not falls under the purview of consumer dispute.   Therefore, we opine that the complainant is a consumer and there is a triable consumer dispute and answer this point in favour of the complainant. 

9.  POINT No.2:-    The source of income for the said Rama Devi in depositing Rs.1,00,000/- with the 1^st opposite party is immaterial as this Forum is concerned in dealing with deficiency of service only.   Likewise, this Forum also cannot decide the applicability of the provisions of the prohibition benami transfers for the above reason.  

10.   The complainant in his complainant and affidavit averred that the 1^st opposite party gave evasive reply requiring the consent of the 2^nd opposite party.   The said contention implied that the 2^nd opposite party also made a rival claim with the 1^st opposite party in respect of Ex.A-2 fixed deposit receipt.  

11.   The role of a nominee is well settled in law.    In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Padmavathi and another 2007 (2) CPJ 389 it was held:

“No doubt a nominee is only a trustee or agent on behalf of all the legal representatives.  But so far as the insurance company is concerned, its obligation is only to the nominee and once payment is made to the nominee its responsibility under the policy would cease and it is not answerable to any of the legal representatives.”

        Taking a clue from the above decision the 1^st opposite party is under an obligation to pay the maturity amount to the nominee irrespective of claim by the 2^nd opposite party.     It is for the other legal representatives of the deceased depositor to claim their respective shares from the nominee.   Therefore the 1^st opposite party’s failure to pay the maturity amount to the complainant being nominee amounted to deficiency of service.   The 2^nd opposite party is not under any obligation to provide any service to the complainant.   Making a claim to the 1^st opposite party being legal representative of the deceased depositor regarding Ex.A-2 in no way amounted to deficiency of service.     The contention of the 2^nd opposite party about unnecessarily impleading him as a party to this complaint is therefore well founded.   It is the 1^st opposite party who committed deficiency of service.   We therefore answer this point against the 1^st opposite party and direct him to pay the maturity value of Ex.A-2 to the complainant together with admissible rate of interest.

12.  POINT No.3:-     The contention of the 1^st opposite party about its inability to pay the maturity amount to the complainant in view of 2^nd opposite party’s rival claim though reasonable but is not legally sustainable.   Under those circumstances awarding nominal damages of Rs.5,000/- will meet ends of justice.   We therefore answer this point accordingly.

13.  POINT No.4:   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is   partly allowed as indicated below:

1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay maturity value of Ex.A-2 together with admissible interest.
2. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as damages to the complainant.
3. The 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant towards costs.
4. The claim against the 2^nd opposite party is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) payable by the complainant.
5. The above directions are to be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

         Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 18^th day of February, 2013.

          MEMBER                        MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant  :

For 1^st opposite party:     

For 2^nd opposite party:      NIL

          PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.