DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 25^th day of August 2023  

                       Filed on: 18/01/2021

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                               Member

C C No. 37/2021

COMPLAINANT

K.Valsala Kumari, W/o.M.Janardhanan Nair (Late), Thirumarpadi House, Opp. Block Office, Udayanapuram, Kottayam, Pin-686 143.

(By Adv.S.M.Prem, Paul Abrao Road, Kochi-682 018)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Manager, The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Vyttila Branch, RSAC Road, Near Vyttila Hub, Cochin-682 019,
2. The Managing Director, The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd Corporate Office, Badratha PB No.510, Museum Road, Thrissur-680 020

(o.p 1 and 2 rep. by Sandeep Gopalakrishnan, M/s.Firm Resolve law Office No.101, First Floor, Travancore Twingle, Kannachanthodu Road, Ayyappankavu, Kochi-682 018)

F I N A L   O R D E R

V.Ramachandran, Member

1)       A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant states that her husband was working in Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd (KSFE) at Vyttila branch as Manager and retired on 31.08.2013.  The 1^st opposite party is KSFE Vyttila Branch and the 2^nd opposite party is its head office at Thrissur.  The gist of the complaint is that the husband of the complainant had saved some money and combined with his retirement benefits had deposited the amount vide deposit Nos. 12949, 12950,12951,12952 and 12953 each of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs) and another fixed deposit for Rs.2,2937/- with deposit No.15190 was made in the opposite party’s institution. They were in the joint name of the complainant and her husband payable to either or survivor on maturity, Besides this there was another Rs.25,000/- with Fixed Deposit No.12948 in their record.

The complainant further states that the deposit was made in October 2013.  A year after the retirement of the husband of the complainant when the deposits were due for payments, the 2^nd opposite party issued a communication to the 1^st opposite party to withhold the deposits.  Subsequently, the deposits were withhold with the 1^st opposite party.  No notice was issued to the complainant or her husband in this regard.  The husband of the complainant expired on 02.02.2019 due to the mental agony caused by the apprehension of losing his life savings. The deposits were repeatedly renewed.  But after the death of the husband of the complainant the deposits matured on 30.08.2020.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party requesting for renewal of the deposits in her name,  but the  1^st opposite party did not respond to it and arbitrarily renewed the deposits in the joint names.  This has come to the notice of the complainant when the complainant obtained the details through RTI Act.  There after the opposite party prematurely closed the deposits and even a statement had not been given to the complainant.  Aggrieved by the action of the opposite party the complainant approached this Commission seeking for getting the lost interest of each deposits coming to a total of Rs.28,890/- along with other reliefs. 

2)       Notice

          Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed their version. 

3. Version of the opposite parties

In the version the opposite parties denied all the allegations and stated that the deceased husband of the complainant cheated the opposite party by forcedly valued and disbursed the payment in the chitty and stated that the adopted value of the pledged land valued by him was Rs.42,75,000/- and on revaluation of the said land, it was found to be Rs.14,00,000/- only.Thus the opposite party suffered huge loss due to the negligence from the part of the husband of the complainant and as a part of the investigation and action, the Assistant General Manager (Recovery) informed the opposite party to withhold the fixed deposits in the name of the husband of the complainant till further orders. It was on the basis of the request of the complainant the fixed deposits were closed and transferred the amount into the account No.2013990179.The deposits were renewed in the name of original account holders as the complainant requested to renew the same without producing the death certificate of her husband.The accounts are closed as per the request of the complainant.The opposite party company has only reduced the interest as per the terms and conditions of the deposits at the event of premature closing.

4)       Evidence    

The complainant produced Exbt.A1 to A3 documents and the opposite party produced Exbt.B1 to B6.The complainant also filed proof affidavit. Exbt.A1 is the copy of Death certificate of the complainant’s husband. Exbt.A2 is the copy of the letter issued by KSFE to the complainant on 21.12.2020.Exbt.A3 is the another letter sent by the complainant to the KSFE.

Exbt.B1 is a letter.Exbt.B2 is a reminder.Exbt.B3 is another letter and Exbt.B3 series of copies of fixed deposit receipts.Exbt.B4 is the letter issued by the complainant to the opposite parties requesting for the closure of the FD.Exbt.B5 is the letter and Exbt.B6 is the statement of accounts.

5)       The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:

(i)      Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?

ii)       If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?

(iii)     Costs of the proceedings if any?

6)       Point No. (1)

          It is not coming out from the version filed by the opposite parties that the circumstances and details of liability, case or disciplinary action pending etc under which the orders to withheld the amounts deposited by the officer who had retired from service has been issued by the additional General Manager (Recovery) in this case.  It is also not known as to whether any  disciplinary procedures were initiated against the officer.  The opposite party had stated that the deposits were ordered to be withheld by the additional GM (Recovery) in this case without clearly stating the reason and only by stating that the valuation made by the husband of the complainant while in service which caused lost to the opposite party.  Further and above, without mentioning anything regarding the final observation the amount has been released  subsequently to the wife of the diseased.  From this it is very clear that the opposite party had committed serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the depositor.  The opposite party cannot wash their hands simply by producing Exbt.B4   which is a request obtained by the opposite parties from the complainant for giving back her deposit after closing prematurely.  Simply by showing this evidence, the opposite party cannot skip away from their responsibility from the allegations framed against them by the complainant. Hence the opposite parties are duty bound to pay the accrued amount of interest due to the complainant as if it acquired its interest on natural maturity.  Hence the opposite party is duty bound to issue the complainant the interest amount ought to have been eligible by the complainant for the deposits if  it is naturally matured.  Hence point No. (1) is found favour of the complainant and therefore point Nos. (2) and (3) also decided accordingly. 

1. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.28,890/- to the complainant being the balance interest for the Fixed Deposits made by the complainant with the opposite parties.
2. An amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by the opposite parties as compensation to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.

The above order shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amounts ordered vide (1) and (2) above shall attract @9.5% interest p.a from the date of receipt of coy of this order till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this 25^th day August  2023.

Sd/-

V.Ramachandran Member

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                   D.B.Binu President

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   Sreevidhia T.N., Member

                                                                   Forwarded by Order

                                                                   Assistant Registrar.

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Evidence

Opposite party’s evidence

UK/

Despatch Date

By hand/By post                                                                   

C.C. No.37/2021

                                                                                                Order dated 25/08/2023