This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      07-02-11 in the presence of Sri M.Sravan Kumar, advocate for complainant and of Sri M.V.Subba Rao, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.7,81,926/- towards FD, RD and SB amounts with interest from August, 2009 till the date of payment and also Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony.

The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                The complainant and her husband late Ramineni Veera Rao jointly opened SB account with opposite party bank on 13-03-1996 with account No.202711.  Later, they made a fixed deposit in their name on 25-03-08 for an amount of Rs.7,43,478/- for one year.  On 13-04-09, the complainant opened RD account payable at Rs.6000/- per month.  Every month the interest on FD is credited to the RD account and complainant’s husband would add some more amount to it to meet the RD account requirement.  The nominee for the RD account is complainant. 

                While so, on 22-08-09 the complainant’s husband died.  The complainant approached opposite party and submitted the relevant documents for payment of above amount but opposite party did not choose to pay the amount.  The complainant sent legal notice on 23-11-09 but invain.  Hence, the complaint.

The opposite party filed its version, which is in brief as follows:

                There is no cause of action to file the present case as the complainant is well aware that the legal heirs of late Ramineni Veera Rao by name R.Radhika Rani and Vutla Radhika, they are also caused legal notice on 11-11-09 and like wise the complainant also gave a notice on 23-11-09 claiming subject involved fixed deposit.  While this opposite party was in the process of getting clarification to consider the application of complainant, without waiting for sufficient time, the complainant filed the matter before the Forum as such the complainant is not entitled for an equitable relief and as such the complainant is at liberty to withdraw the amount as she being either or survivor to the application of late Ramineni Veera Rao, however, in view of legal notice an indemnity bond shall be executed by her and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

                The complainant and opposite party have filed their respective affidavits and documents, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A3 and Ex.B1 to B3.  

                The complainant through her affidavit expressed willingness to issue indemnity bond to opposite party, which reads as follows:

                   “As per the version of opposite party in para No.4 they have mentioned that the complainant is at liberty to withdraw the amount as she being either or survivor to the application of Ramineni Veera Rao, in view of the legal notice an indemnity bond shall be executed by her.  After seeing the counter version I went to opposite party bank on 31-08-10 and informed that she is ready to give indemnity and asked the bank people to give the proforma of indemnity.  But they said that unless there is court order, they will not proceed further in this matter.”

                As said above, the complainant counsel filed a memo on 07-02-11 stating that “the complainant is ready to give indemnity bond on the bank prescribed proforma.”

Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether the opposite party has committed any deficiency of service?
2. It so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

POINT No.1

                The contention of complainant is about three different accounts those were opened and maintained by herself and her deceased husband jointly and severally.  1) Saving bank account bearing No.202711 opened on 13-03-1996 jointly by complainant and her husband.  2) One year fixed deposit account bearing No.396091045361 amounting to Rs.7,43,478/- with either or survivor mode of operation and had no nominee.  3) RD account bearing No.396091051663 opened on 13-04-09 with due date 13-03-2010 and nominee being the complainant.

                Amongst the above three accounts the complainant entitlement is restricted only to FD account, since the mode of operation in this account is “either or survivor” which means that the amount payable by bank on its maturity may be paid to either of surviving account holders in order to obtain valid discharge.

                In case of remaining two accounts though the complainant is joint account holder and nominee, her right will be exercised only on production of ‘succession certificate’, since the opposite party bank received notices from the children taking the stance of LRs of complainant’s deceased husband.  When there is question of legal representatives the opposite party can only move the FD account but not remaining ones.  The opposite party bank ought to have explained in detail to the complainant about all these and should have paid off the FD amount but failed.  Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  

POINT No.2

                The opposite party bank shall pay compensation and costs to the complainant for their negligence and delay.

                In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The complainant is directed to produce indemnity bond to opposite party.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay the FD amount of Rs.7,43,478/- to the complainant together with admissible interest from 25-03-08 till the date of payment on receipt of indemnity bond from her since its mode of operation is “either or survivor”.
3. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs to the complainant.
4. The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amounts ordered in point No.3 shall carry interest @9% p.a. till the date of realization.
5. The rest of the complaint is dismissed.      

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 23^rd day of February, 2011.

         Sd/XXXXX                     Sd/XXXXX                            Sd/XXXXX 

          MEMBER                               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT          

   APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral evidence is adduced on either side

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For Opposite party :                                                                         

                                                                                         Sd/XXXXX 

                                                                                          PRESIDENT