cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

                       Dated this the 29^th day of  September 2012

                                                                                 Filed on : 09/08/2011

Present :

          Shri. A  Rajesh,                                                     President.

Shri. Paul Gomez,                                                 Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma,                                           Member

C.C. No. 429/2011

     Between

V.M. Muhammed Sherif,                           :         Complainant

S/o. Late V.P. Marakkar,                           ( By Adv. P.K. Aboobacker

Vellakkal house, V.P Marakkar,                 Kombara Jun., Ernakulam

Vellakkal house,                                         North P.O.Kochi-18)

V.P. Marakkar road,Edappally P.O.,

Kochi-682 024.

                                                And

 1. The Chief Post Master General          :         Opposite parties

     P.M.G Office, P.M.G Junction,             (By Authorized representative)

    Thiruvananthapuram-695 033.

2. The Post Master General,

    Central Region,

     Kochi-682018.

3.  The Superintendent of Post Office,

     Ernakulam Division,

     Head Post Office Building,

     Ernakulam-682 011.

4. The Post Mistress,

    Thrikkakara Post Office-682 021.

                                          O R D E R

C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

          Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:

          The complainant’s mother Sainaba has  a recurring deposit with the 4^th opposite party.  The maturity value of Rs. 23,689/- was due for payment on 10-01-2011.  During the said period Sainabha was hospitalized. The same was informed to the 4^th opposite party and also  informed her willingness to take the thumb impression.  But  the 4^th opposite party was on adamant  stand that the cheque can be issued only if she gives her full signature and told that the cheque already received in favour of Sainaba would be returned to Trivandrum for want of her signature.  The complainant’s mother died on 09-02-2011.  After the death of Sainaba the complainant being the nominee approached the 4^th opposite party to release the amount and filed a claim application on 07-04-2011.  But  it did not accept by the opposite party.  Against  which the complainant filed representations before the  3^rd opposite party.  The 3rd  opposite party replied with   untenable reasons.  In their last reply they stated that the officials at fault have been severely warned.  The 4^th opposite party had never issued any intimation at any point of time either to the Account holder or to the nominee as per rules.  There is  willful negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   The complainant sought the following reliefs against the opposite parties

i.                    To direct the opposite parties to disburse the maturity amount with interest from the date of maturity till realization.

ii.                  To pay compensation and costs of the proceedings.

2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:

The Recurring Deposit account of the complainants mother matured in January 2011, the agent presented the pass book  before the 4^th opposite party for payment of the maturity value .  The cheque for the said amount was obtained by the 4^th opposite party and informed the agent.  Later the agent informed that the depositor was hospitalized  and the payment would be taken after  her return from the hospital.  The  depositor  expired on 09-02-2011.  The name of the nominee in the claim application submitted before the 4^th opposite party and the application given at the time of opening the account is Sheriff.  But in the voters identity card name is shown as Mohammed Sheriff.  As per the visiting  card of  the complainant  the name is Sherif Marakkar.  In view of the above discrepancies  requested the complainant to re-submit the claim application with  reconciliation certificate to prove  the identity of the  person.  The reconciliation certificate was demanded with a view to settle the claim without delay.  The opposite parties could not settle the claim without  satisfying that the claim is presented by the actual nominee.  There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant came out with his grievances only  on 21-04-2011.   The complaint is devoid of any merits and the reliefs sought for against the opposite party  are unsustainable.

3.  The  complainant represented through counsel.   The opposite parties represented through the authorized representative.  The complainant and the opposite parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and  Exbts. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant. DWs 1  and 2 were examined by the opposite parties and Exts. B1 to B8 were marked. Both sides filed  argument notes and heard.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-

(i) Whether the complainant is entitled to get  maturity amount

 with interest from the opposite parties ?

Ii Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and

     costs if any?

5. Points Nos. i  & ii.  Admittedly the complainant’s mother, Late   Sainaba had a Recurring Deposit account with the 4^th opposite party and the same was matured on 10-01-2011.  The depositor died on 09-02-2011.  The complainant is the  nominee.  The dispute is with regard to disbursement of the said amount.  The complainant contented that during the maturity date of the said deposit his mother was hospitalized and she was not in a position to put his signature on the relevant papers.  Though the deposit  informed her willingness to  put  thumb impression in front of the witness,  the 4^th opposite party did not  accept the same.   According to the opposite parties the  complainant never approached them for receiving the cheque before the demise of his mother. Nothing  is on record to substantiate the said contention of the complainant.

6. On a perusal of  Ext. A1,  copy of the claim application and in Ext. B8, copy of the Account opening  application  the nominee’s name mentioned as Shereef.  But in Ext. B1, copy  of the visiting card and in Ext. B3, copy of the I.D proof   the name  of the complainant is shown as  Sherif Marakkar and Muhammed Sherief respectively.  In accordance of the S.B. Order No. 25/2010 dated 23-12-2010 by the Government of India Ministry of Communications & IT Department of posts with regard to the New procedure for payment of  amount of savings Bank/certificates in the name of deceased depositors/holders which reads as follows:

“Taking a Proof of death in original, two witnesses, ID and Address proof of the claimant and three legal documents i.e (a) Affidavit (b).  Letter of indemnity and (c).  Letter of disclaimer of Affidavit will be the safe procedure to above the post office from any legal responsibility.

During cross examination, the complainant admitted that  on 21-04-2011 and 31-05-2011 he made  complaints before the opposite parties. As per Ext.  A5 dated  26-05-2011 the opposite parties  requested the complainant to submit reconciliation certificate.  The complainant does not have a case that he produced Ext. A8 reconciliation certificate before the opposite parties. Reconciliation certificate is a mandatory documents of the nominees differ from each other.  The demand of the opposite party to produce reconciliation certificate is justifiable in law and the complainant is legally liable to submit the same before the opposite party in which the complainant failed and no explanation is forthcoming on his part.

 Therefore we can not find any deficiency in service on  the part of the opposite parties.  Even then, the complainant is entitled to get the  deposited amount with  interest from the opposite parties.

        7.Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:

The opposite parties shall disburse the matured  amount of Rs. 23,689/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity till payment to the complainant as and when the complainant  submits the reconciliation certificate before the 4^th opposite party. 

          The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.             

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of  September 2012.