BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 353/2003 Filed on 04.09.2003<br /> Dated : 30.04.2008<br /> <br /> Complainant :<br /> <br /> Elizabeth Varghese Chacko alias Elizabeth Chacko, D/o Varghese, G-2-Block-8, R.K. Apartments, Hoysala Nagar, Rammoorthy Nagar, Bangalore-16.<br /> (By adv. Sony.A)<br /> Opposite parties :<br /> <br /> 1.The Chief Secretary, State of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 2.The Director, Treasury Department, Power House Road, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> 3.The Treasury Officer, Sub-Treasury, Pension Payment, Chirakulam Road, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 24.08.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 09.04.2008, the Forum on 30.04.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI .A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: The aunt of the complainant Smt. Alice Ipe has deposited an amount of Rs. 72500/- in Sub-treasury, Thiruvanananthapuram for a period of one year. The interest rate was 13% till the date of maturity. At the time of deposit the complainant was the legal nominee. The deposit matured on 09.09.2000. Alice Ipe expired on 13.10.1999. The complainant submits that, on 15.09.2000 she approached the opposite party for the renewal of the deposit for a further period of 3 years. But the opposite parties refused to do so since the complainant is only a nominee. She could not renew it. On 22.05.2003 the complainant approached the opposite parties and withdrew the deposit. But the opposite parties sanctioned only Rs. 81925/-. As per the complainant she has to get an additional amount of Rs. 33179/-, the interest at the rate of 13.5% for the matured amount of Rs. 81925/- for a further period of 3 years. The complainant alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> <br /> The 1st opposite party in this case is Chief Secretary, State of Kerala and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are the Director, Treasury Department and the Treasury Officer, Sub-treasury, Thiruvananthapuram. 1st opposite party remains ex-parte and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties filed version and appeared in person. According to the opposite parties since the complainant is only a nominee she could not renew the deposit after maturity. It is the Rules in force. And also they submitted that as per the nomination tendered by the depositor the name of the nominee was noted as Elizabeth Chacko. But the documents produced by the complainant reveals that the name was Elizabeth Varghese Chacko. The opposite parties directed the complainant to produce the documents showing that the person is one and the same. But she did not do so. Only on 22.05.2003 she produced the affidavit to substantiate the name noted as Elizabeth Chacko in the nomination and Elizabeth Varghese Chacko as per the records are one and the same. On the strength of the affidavit and other documents produced by the complainant, the principal amount together with interest were disbursed to her. According to the opposite party, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. <br /> From the side of the complainant Exts P1 to P5 were marked and the friend of the complainant Mr. Raja Warriar filed affidavit for the complainant in lieu of chief examination.<br /> Points to be considered:<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for?<br /> Points 1 & 2:- It is the admitted fact that Smt. Alice Ipe has deposited Rs. 72500/- in the Sub-treasury for one year, and the complainant was the legal nominee. The depositor expired before the amount matured. The legal nominee has the right to receive the amount. The complainant argued that she had approached the opposite parties for the renewal of the matured amount. But the opposite parties denied her request on the ground that the nominee has no right to renew the amount. The complainant in this case produced 5 documents to prove her case. Ext. P1 is the deposit certificate. There is no dispute regarding the deposit. Ext. P2 is the copy of request letter dated 18.09.2000 for the renewal of the deposit which is a photocopy. The complainant has no evidence to show that this letter has been submitted before the opposite parties. At the time of argument and in the version, the opposite parties denied the same and they further submit that they have no knowledge about that letter and more over they state that in the opposite parties' office records no such letter is filed. At this juncture, the pertinent point to be noted is that, the complainant has not produced any scrap of paper to prove that she has sent the said Ext P2 letter. She has failed to establish that the said letter has been sent to the authority concerned in time. This forum has also some doubt about the genuineness of this letter. Ext. P3 is the legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties. Ext. P4 is the postal receipts and P5 series are the acknowledgement cards. Moreover PW1 is only a friend of the complainant who has no direct knowledge with regard to this complaint.<br /> <br /> According to the opposite parties, the name of the complainant was noted as Elizabeth Chacko at the time of deposit and the records produced by the complainant showed that the name is Elizabeth Varghese Chacko. Hence the opposite parties directed the complainant to produce records to show Elizabeth Chacko and Elizabeth Varghese Chacko is one and the same person. But the complainant produced the affidavit and documents only on 22.03.2003 and on that day itself she was disbursed with the amount. The delay is caused due to the negligence of the complainant herself. The opposite parties are not liable for the loss and agony caused to the complainant. Moreover in the view of this Forum, the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum. The complainant suppressed the material fact of this case that the name of the complainant in the opposite parties' records and the original records were different and no utter with regard to the changes in name in the complaint and when she produced the documents to show Elizabeth Chacko and Elizabeth Varghese Chacko is one and the same, thereafter she was disbursed with the amount. From the side of the complainant she produced a Ruling cited in 11(2002) CPJ 52 of the Orissa State Commission in support of the case. On going through the facts of that case it is seen not relevant to this case.<br /> <br /> The complainant had admitted the fact that she had the knowledge that she could not renew the amount for further period. This being so, she could have withdrawn the amount in time and it was very well open to the complainant to deposit the same and get further interest for the same. <br /> In this case a Government Order dated 02.08.2004 also produced that order is not applicable in this case. The complainant received the amount on 22.05.2003, the order date is 02.08.2004. The opposite party produced copy of G.O(P) 517/78/Fin dated 11.07.1978 and G.O(P) No. 568/81/Fin dated 01.09.1981 wherein under clause (8) it is stated that 'At the close of the period of the deposit, the depositors may either withdraw the amount with interest or renew it for a further period when a further declaration must be furnished. Deposit will cease to bear interest from the date following the expiry of the period of deposit'. But since the complainant has not approached the opposite parties in time with relevant documents, the complainant could not withdraw the amount accordingly. This is solely due to the negligent act on the part of the complainant for which opposite parties should not be made liable. On the light of the said order the complainant has no right to get any interest after the maturity period without renewing the deposit. Moreover, Treasury Department has not disbursed the amount to the complainant only after due verification. While disbursing the money, they of course have a duty to find out the credit worthiness of the party. The Treasury has to safeguard its interest. It is a public financial institution and the funds involved are public money. Hence we are of the view that the opposite parties have rejected the claim of the complainant after due verification and on reasonable grounds also. <br /> On a careful perusal of the recorded evidence this Forum has come to the point that there is no way any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties. For the foregoing reasons this Forum finds that the complainant has failed to establish her case.. Hence the complaint is dismissed. No costs. <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th April, 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 353/2003<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Copy of Term Deposit Certificate dated 09.09.1999.<br /> P2 - Copy of the request letter dated 18.09.2000 sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party.<br /> P3 - Copy of advocate notice dated 03.06.2003.<br /> P4 - 3 postal receipts dated 03.06.2003.<br /> P5 - Acknowledgement cards 3 Nos. <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />