Complaint filed on: 23-04-2019
Disposed on: 12-06-2020
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, TUMAKURU
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.102/2019
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JUNE 2020
PRESENT
SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com., L.L.M, PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B.(Spl) LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
C.K.Bojaraju
S/o. late Chandramma and
Late C.R.Kanteerava Murthy
52 years, R/at Triveni Nilaya,
Sriramanagara, 1st Main road,
Tumakuru
(By Advocate Sri.Lakshminarayana.T)
V/s
Opposite party:-
The Manager,
Pavagada Souhardha Multi Purpose Co-Operative Ltd.
Branch office: SIT Main Road,
Tumakuru
(By Advocate Sri.H.V.Ranganatha Reddy)
ORDER
SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT
This complaint has filed by one Sri.C.K.Bhojaraju S/o. late Chandramma and late C.R.Kanteerava Murthy aged 52 years resident of Tumakuru to direct the Opposite party-Manager, Pavagada Souharda Multi Purpose Co-operative Limited branch office Tumakuru to pay Rs.10,60,000=00 of FD receipts amount with interest.
2. It is the case of complainant that his mother Chandramma had kept Rs.10,60,000=00 on 20-5-2015 and 28-5-2015 in eleven FD in the Opposite party society for a period of five years. The complainant is the only son of deceased Chandramma and she has made him as nominee for FD amount. The said Chandramma was died on 10-3-2018 as such the complainant is entitled to the FD amount. The complainant did not approach the Opposite party society since the FD was not matured. Later on the complainant came to know that the Opposite Party has given FD amount to his sisters by creating false documents. Hence, this complaint.
3. The Opposite Party appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version contending that the complainant is not a consumer as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The Opposite party admitted that the deceased Chandramma has deposited Rs.10,60,000=00 on 20-5-2015 by nine deposits of Rs.1,00,000=00 each and Rs.50,000=00 FD and another Rs.1,10,000=00. The opposite party further admitted that the deceased Chandramma was passed away on 10-3-2018. However the opposite party denied that the complainant is only legal heir as such the complainant is not entitled for eleven FD receipts amount.
4. It is the case of opposite party that the deceased Chandramma has made her daughters Smt.C.K.Roopa W/o. Uday Kumar Megeri and Smt.C.K.Triveni W/o. Hanumantharaya as nominees to the said deposits. Both of her daughters by furnishing the indemnity bonds and affidavit for loss of original FD receipts have received FD amount on 23-5-2018. After disbursing the FD amount the complainant has got issued notice through his learned advocate on 15-11-2018 for return of FD amount and for which the opposite party has given reply stating that it has given amount to the nominees. The entire FD receipts amount given to the nominees as such the complainant is not entitled for any amount and he can approach the proper forum and get the entire FD amount.
5. The Complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced original FD receipts along with copy of notice issued to the opposite party, reply notice and death certificate of deceased Chandramma. On behalf of Opposite party one Dayananda.P.K, Branch Manager, Tumakuru has filed affidavit evidence. On the application filed on behalf of the complainant the opposite party has produced original FD account opening forms and FD register to show crediting the interest to the SB Account of deceased bearing No.345 and affidavit of Smt.C.K.Roopa and Smt.C.K.Triveni. Further the opposite party has produced copies of affidavit and account opening forms and they are marked as Exs.R1 to R39.
6. We have heard the oral arguments of both learned counsels in addition to their written arguments and the points that would arise for determination are as under:
1) Whether the complainant proves that he is a consumer under the CP Act?
2) Whether the complainant further proves that he is entitled for FD amount from the Opposite party bank along with interest?
3) What order?
7. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the affirmative.
Point No.2: In the affirmative
Point No.3: As per final order for the below
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 3: The learned counsel for the Opposite party argued that the complainant is not a consumer as such the complaint is not maintainable. Admittedly the opposite party is doing bank business by receiving the amount from the customers/public and advancing loan to the customers. The bank or financial institution is a consumer under CP Act, 1986. Therefore there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the opposite party as the complainant is not a consumer under the CP Act 1986.
9. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that though the complainant is in possession of original FD receipts, the opposite party in collusion with his sisters have created the false documents and released the FD amount in favour of Smt.C.K.Roopa and Smt.C.K.Triveni. As against this the learned counsel representing the opposite party has vehemently argued that the opposite party has not paid the FD amount to the sisters of complainant behind his back, but the amount has been given as per nomination made by deceased Chandramma. The opposite party has not created affidavit of Smt.C.K.Roopa and Smt.C.K.Triveni while giving the FD amount.
10. It is undisputed fact that the deceased Chandramma kept Rs.10,60,000=00 as FD amount in the opposite party society on 20-5-2015 Rs.1,00,000=00 each of nine deposits, Rs.50,000=00 and another FD Rs.1,10,000=00 on 28-5-2015. The opposite party has not disputed the death of Chandramma as on 10-3-2018 at Tumakuru. In all the original FD receipts produced by the complainant the deceased Chandramma residential address shown as #73, D.C.Office and PWD Quarters, Sri Ramanagar 1, 2, 3 1st Cross, Left side, Tumkur. It is further mentioned that due date of FD receipts is as 20-5-2020, period of deposit is five years and nominee register. The opposite party has produced the originals as well as true copy of account opening forms and other documents and they are marked as Exhs.R1 to R39. On the date of ten deposits of Rs.9,50,000=00 i.e. on 20-5-2015 the deceased Chandramma had opened SB account in the OP society. Ex.R9 is SB account opening form and opened the SB account on 20-5-2015 bearing account No.345/15. On the back side of Ex.R9 the nominee name is mentioned as C.K.Bojaraju complainant aged 50 years. Ex.R12 is letter of attestation/ declaration dated 20-5-2015 for attesting left hand thumb impression of the deceased Chandramma by complainant C.K.Bojaraju. Ex.R14 is letter given by the deceased Chandramma to debit /credit of her loan account transfer to SB account No.345/15. The above documents speak that on the date of deposit of Rs.9,50,000=00 as FD in 10 deposits the deceased Chandramma had opened the SB account bearing No.345/15 and her left hand thumb impression has attested on Ex.R12 by complainant. Further Ex.R9 account opening form itself speaks that the deceased Chandramma had made her son as nominee to SB account.
11. The opposite party has produced original FD, account opening forms along with their copies marked as Exhs.R15 to 19 and 30 to 35. On the back side of the FD account opening forms we can see nominee and nomination has also made on 20-5-2015 the date on which the SB account was opened by the deceased Chandramma. In Exhs.R15 to R19 Smt.Triveni aged 58 years mentioned as nominee and in Exhs.R30 to R35 Smt.Roopa Megeri aged 54 years made as nominee. The complainant has attested the left hand thumb impression of deceased Chandramma but these daughters have not attested the left hand thumb impression of deceased Chandramma if the deceased has made them as nominees on 20-5-2015. It is mentioned in the nominee forms of FD address as shown as same and the relationship as daughter. The deceased Chandramma has shown her residential address in the account opening form and FD receipts as #73, DC office, PWD quarters, Sriramanagar, 1st Cross, left side, Tumkur. The daughters have also mentioned in the same means address of their mother in the nominee forms. Both daughters before receiving FD amount have submitted documents to the Opposite party on 21-4-2018 application for transfer of the FD amount in their name stating that as their mother is no more along with claim form, Aadhar card and Pan Card.
12. The First daughter Smt.C.K.Triveni produced Ex-R4 copy of the Aadhar card and Ex.R5 copy of Pan Card wherein her residential address shown as No.M-11, 20th Block, CPWD quarters, Near Water Tank, Koramangal, Bangalore south, Bangalore. The second daughter Smt.C.K.Roppa has produced Ex.R25 claim form, Ex.R26 copy of Aadhar Card and Ex.R27 copy of Pan Card. According to these documents Smt.C.K.Roopa residing at Baha Nilaya, 2nd Main, Sriramanagar, New Extension, Tumkur. In the nominee column both the daughters have shown their age as 58 and 54 years. It shows that both the daughters have married long back and eldest daughter is resident of Bangalore and the second daughter is resident of Tumkur. But the second daughter is resident of Baha Nilaya, 2nd Main, Sriramanagar, New Extension, Tumkur. But in the nominee forms dated 20-5-2015 both the daughters have mentioned as same i.e. address of the deceased Chandramma. On perusal of these it can be said that the opposite party has created the nomination columns to give FD amount to the sisters of complainant. Both the daughters though married long back and one is resident of Bangalore and another daughter is of Tumkur but residing in separate address. But in the nomination forms it is wrongly mentioned as the same address of the deceased Chandramma.
13. Another doubtful circumstance is that the signature of two bank officers who signed above the nomination register number and date in the nomination form of SB account marked at Ex.R9. Even on nomination of FD account opening forms on the back side above the register number and date two persons have signed. Signatures made above the nomination register number and date on the SB account nomination form and FD nomination form are entirely different though on the same day the SB account was opened and FDs were made on 20-5-2015. By comparing with Ex.R9 SB account opening form and Exhs.R15 to R19 and R30 to R35 FD nomination forms signatures are entirely different as such it can be said that after the death of deceased Chandramma the opposite party officials have created nomination of Smt.C.K.Roopa and Smt.C.K.Triveni to give FD amount as such the signature above the nomination register number and date two persons is entirely different compared with the nomination form of SB account. There is no possibility of different signatures on nomination forms of two persons since SB account was opened on 20-5-2015 and FD nomination was made on the same day i.e. on 20-5-2015.
14. The Opposite party has mentioned on each FD opening forms on front page as SB account No.345 to credit the interest of FD. The deceased Chandramma has made the complainant as nominee to SB account which is also on 20-5-2015 the day on which all ten FD were made on the same day. When the deceased Chandramma has made the complainant as nominee to SB account the question of making her daughters as nominee does not arise. Even for the sake of arguments the deceased Chandramma has made her daughters as nominees to FD amount, the opposite party knew that the complainant is nominee to the SB account and son of the deceased Chandramma and brother of Smt.C.K.Roopa and Smt.C.K.Triveni, then it would have asked the daughters to bring no objection from their brother since he is nominee to SB account of deceased Chandramma.
15. The daughters of deceased Chandramma have lodged a complaint before the City Police Station, Tumakuru alleging that the FD receipt bonds which were in the house were lost. Ex.R28 is acknowledgment dated 30-4-2018 issued by the City Police Station, Tumakuru for lodging a complaint by Smt.C.K.Roopa stating for loss of FD receipts in which her mother made them as nominee. Further Ex-R8 and Ex.29 is the joint affidavit filed by Smt.C.K.Triveni and Smt.C.K.Roopa stating that while shifting their house FD receipts have lost. The opposite party has not even verified the affidavit filed by both the daughters dated 22-5-2018 which is not sworn before the notary or any competent authority. Affidavit must be sworn before the competent authority then it would be valid affidavit or get sanctity in the eye of law. Affidavit is not sworn before any of the competent authority even then on the basis of plain affidavit without swearing before any competent authority the opposite party has believed that the daughters have lost FD receipts. It shows that the opposite party in collusion with the daughters of deceased Chandramma has given FD amount since it is already observed that on front page of each account opening form of FD the opposite party itself mentioned the SB account No.345. It shows that the opposite party has knew that the complainant is nominee of deceased Chandramma to SB account when the daughters of deceased Chandramma have came up with the allegation that they have lost the FD receipts. Then the Opposite party would have issued notice to the complainant, since he is son of the deceased Chandramma and nominee to SB account, as it was opened on the day of deposit of FD except Rs.1,10,000=00. These doubtful circumstances prove that the opposite party in collusion with the daughters of the deceased Chandramma have created nomination to the FD of the deceased and given the FD amount to them. The allegation made in the unsworn affidavit while shifting house the FD bonds were lost not believable, since one of the daughters is resident of Bengaluru and another daughter of Tumkur but her residence is in separate area. The opposite party though was aware that the complainant is nominee of the deceased SB account it would have issued notice to him before making payment of the FD amount to believe the claim of the daughters that they have lost the FD bonds. In view of the above circumstances, the opposite party is not only negligent while paying the FD amount but also in collusion with the daughters of deceased have given FD amount though the complainant is in possession of all the original FD receipts. The daughters have not made allegations against the complainant that he has stolen the FD receipts. Therefore, the opposite party shall liable to pay FD amount of Rs.10,60,000=00 to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of death of Chandramma i.e. 10-3-2018 till payment. In the result, we proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
The complaint filed by C.K.Bojaraju is allowed directing the Opposite party to pay FD amount of Rs.10,60,000=00 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 10-3-2018 till payment.
It is further ordered that the Opposite party shall pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000=00 to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order otherwise, it carries interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of complaint till payment.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open forum on this the 12th day of June, 2020).
LADY MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
