KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No 340/2006
JUDGMENT DATED :30.11.2010
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANT
Vamadevan,
S/o N.R. Kunhikrishnan,
Nelliparfambil House,
Peringottukara, Thrissur.
( Rep. by Adv. Sri. S. Sreekumar & S. Vaidhyanathan )
RESPONDENTS
1. The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.,
Registered Office, College Road,
Thrissur’
Represented by its Chairman.
2. The Branch Manager,
The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.,
Puthenpeedika Branch,
Thrissur.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in O.P. No. 667/2002 dated 25.3.2005. The appellant is the complainant and respondents are the opposite parties in the O.P. respectively. The complainant file this appeal under the order of dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below.
In short, the complainant is employed at U.A.E. Due to persuasion made by the second respondent, the branch manager of the first respondent by letters dated 30.11.1989 and 5.6.1990, his wife sent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by Demand Draft to open N.R.N.R. Family Welfare Deposit Account under the Re-investment scheme. The petitioner’s wife was also residing with him at U.A.E and on receipt of the account the second respondent opened an account number 129/91 on 20.12.1991 in the name of his wife Sarala Vamadevan.
The maturity date of the said account was 20.12.1996 and the amount payable on maturity was Rs. 99,489/- his wife expired on 13.1.1994. It was informed to the second respondent. The complainant and minor children Jeeva and Maya are only legal heirs of deceased Sarala Vamadevan. The complainant requested the second respondent to renew the deposit number 129/91 in the name of minor children. As requested by the second respondent, a copy of death certificate which was forwarded to it. Inspite of repeated requests, respondents did not renew the account. No reason was mentioned. On 10.10.2000, the second respondent sent a letter stating that the matter of renewing the account was being considered by higher authorities. He raised a technicality that it was difficult to renew the account with effect from 1995 as the account could not be renewed for a period of more than 3 years. Sarala Vamadevan had a Savings Bank Account with the second respondent, having a balance of Rs. 36,996.89 to her credit. Finally on 14.6.2001 the second respondent had opened 2 N.R.N.R. Family Welfare deposits in the name of Jeeva and Maya , each for 80,740/- by dividing the total amount of maturity value of fixed deposit and balance in the savings account. The complainant has thus lost the interest on the amount of Rs. 99,489/- from the maturity date of the said deposits, ie. 20.12.1996. As per the interest rate prevailing at that time Rs. 99,489/- would have accrued as interest @ 22.39% in the Re-Investment Deposit Scheme. The account have renewed on 20.12.1996 brought in the maturity value of Rs. 1,66,350/- as on 20.12.1999. On further renewal on 20.12.1999 the said account would have brought in a maturity value of Rs, 2,34,337/- as on 20.12.2001 at the prevailing interest rate of 20.45% . Thus as on 20.12.,2001, he sustained a loss of Rs. 1,34,845/- with interest @ 12% pay him from 20.12.2001 till realization. He has to suffer mental agony and inconvenience for which he has entitled to get compensation of Rs. 50,000/- the prayer is made accordingly.
The opposite parties contented that the deposit of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of the wife of the complainant as N.R.N.R. Family Welfare Deposit under reimbursement scheme accounts 129/91 dated 20.12.1991 for 5 years with maturity date 20.12.1996 is admitted. They contented that the maturity amount was Rs. 99,489/- the allegation of the complainant that to request the second respondent to renew a deposit in the name of minor children is denied. They also denied the claim of the complainant that he forwarded the death certificate of Sarala Vamadevan to the respondents that she expired on 13.1.1994. Death was informed to these respondents only in 2000 and the complainant also informed the respondents that he is willing to transfer F.D. in the name of his minor children the legal heirs. Then the respondents stated that there are some formalities. Transfer the receipts, the production of death certificate, legal heirs certificate from the Village office and filing of death claim application. On 24.6.2000 the second respondent sent an application to the first respondent for getting sanction on the death claim application. The petitioner did not produce relationship Certificate from the Village Officer. The zonal office sent a letter on 17.2.2001, to the second respondent who submitted the relationship certificate sanction so obtained on 8.6.2001. On 14.6.2001 Indemnity bond was executed and receipt was renewed as per the instructions of the complainant in the name of minor Maya and minor Jeeva renewing the interest @ 4.5% as per the Law prevailing on that day. It was also denied that the amount was due under the F.D. receipt is Rs. 99,489/- and credited to S.B. Account of deceased Sarala Vamadevan and subsequently Fixed Deposit Receipt were issued in the name of minor Maya and minor Jeeva a sum of Rs. 80,740/- each adding each accounts. It is denied that the complainant lost interest on the account of Rs. 99,489/-from 20.12.1996. Since Sarala Vamadevan died on 13.1.1994. The parties eligible only for domestic rate of interest from the due date 20.12.1996. Since domestic rate of interest was not clarify for renewal of N.R.N.R. Account. In the case of the death of the depositor, 4.5% interest was given as per Law. It is denied that as per interest rate prevailing at the time of maturity in 1996 the amount of Rs. 95,489/- would have accrued as interest of the rate of 22.39% in the Re-Investment Deposit Scheme. If the party dies before the renewal type of the F.D. Receipt, depositor’s legal heirs will be only to get domestic rate of interest since the depositor has losed N.R.I Status. It is also denied by the respondents that if the account was renewed on 20.12.1996 would have brought in the maturity value of Rs. 2,34,337/- as on 20.12.2001. He has sustained a loss of 1,34,848/-. The petitioner was not entitled to get any amount. They prayed to dismiss the complainant with cost.
The Forum below raised 3 points for consideration. They are;
1) Whether the petitioner has sustained any loss as alleged the
Petition ?
2) Relief and costs?
Evidence consists of Ext. P1 series P2 and Ext. R1 to R12 from the date of maturity to the date of payment, the interest will be simple interest at the applicable range however in the case of the death of the deposit for the date of maturity of the opposite bank has to pay interest on a rate operator on the date of maturity in respect of savings deposit held under R.F.C. Accounts Scheme from the date of maturity till the date payment.
Evidence adduced by the respondents there is no affairs in this term taken by the petitioner the collection of interest done by the petitioner is in his own way without seeing the ruled and the prevailing rate at the relevant time. The Forum below held that during the interregnum of the death and renewal of the deposits there can not be any interest as a non resident Indian, because when she died, the account seized to be N.R.N.R. account and therefore only a domestic rates of interest were applicable. The Forum below held that in the shadow of evidence by the complainant and respondent, there is no deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties and the Forum below dismissed the complaint. The appellant/complainant prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. On this day, this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing. The appellant/complainant is present as a party in person and the respondent re-presented through the counsel. The appellant argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that he has fully entitled to get the N.R.N.R. deposits at N.R.I. rate. The respondents contented that he has entitled to get only the domestic rate of interest and due to the death of the depositor, her N.R.I. Status was lapsed and the counsel for the respondents produced down loaded document to shown that banks are required to renew the overdue deposits for a period of 14 days of the maturity of earlier deposits as stipulated in the circular date 29th July 1988(D.B.O.D No. BC 14/13/2001 on August 3, 1992. We, this Commission heard in detail and perused the entire case sheets and found that the entire money along with the respondents till this time. This Commission suggested the area to both the parties to settle the matter amicably and given sufficient chances to both sides, But today the complainant submitted that the respondents are not co-operated in the settlement. But the counsel for the respondent submitted that the bank manager is not alone incapable to take a decision and he wanted to get the instruction from the higher officers of the bank. We are seeing that there is no purpose to give further time for the settlement between the parties in these days for the settlement. We are seeing from the evidence that in the special circumstance, that the entire money is now also along with the respondents. They have entitled to give the N.R.I. deposit interest to the complainant for the disputed period. It is a legitimate right of the complainant. The entire money of the complainant be utilized by the respondent bank for litigating their funds and there is no hard and principle to cut short the N.R.I. rate in which the domestic rate due to the death of the N.R.I. depositor. There is no settled provision in law or any condition framed by the respondents that after the death of the N.R.N.R. depositor the non residential status of the deceased person will be elapsed. We are seeing the documents of the case strongly without the respondents Bank manager sent a credit letter to the complainant for mobilizing the N.R.I. Funds. It is also their duty to intimate the maturity date of the deposit to the party. But the counsel appeared for the respondent submitted that such a notice is not a mandatory. Due to the death of the wife of the complainant left with two daughters, it is very difficult to collect all the legal documents from the government authorities and to submit before the respondents banks. It can not be expect some delay from the part of the complainant. The government of State prescribed some procedure to issue this legal documents like legal heirship certificates etc. If cannot be taken as a matter of fact. We are not seeing that the Forum below does not appreciate the spirit of the social benefited legislation- ‘The Consumer Protection Act’. It need not be discussed each and every hyper technicalities of the provisions of law and evidence.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and set aside the order passed by the Forum below, directed the opposite parties to pay the amount due to the complainant without reducing the N.R.E interest rate in to the domestic interest. The respondent Bank is directed to calculate the accounts on the basis of this direction and to disburse to the complainant within one month from the date of the receipt of this judgment. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. The points of the appeal answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ST
