CC Filed on 04.10.2010
Disposed on 19.01.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 19th day of January 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 208/2010
Between:
Smt. Gopamma, W/o. Ananda, Aged about 30 years, R/at SeethapanahalliVillage, Malur Taluk, Kolar District. (By Advocate Sri. B. Lakshmiprasad) | ….Complainant |
V/S The Manager, Pragathi Gramina Bank, Dalasanur Branch, Dalasanur, Srinivasapur Taluk. (By Advocate Sri. N. Sampath Kumar) | ….Opposite Party |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay F.D. amount of Rs.32,825/- with interest of Rs.14,660/- at the rate of 9% p.a. in all Rs.47,485/- and subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from 17.07.2007 and costs, etc.,
2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:
That the complainant is the daughter of late. Thippamma and late Rangappa of Valageranahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivaspur Taluk. The complainant’s father died earlier to complainant’s mother. Complainant’s mother Thippamma during her lifetime made a fixed deposit of Rs.32,825/- in OP-Bank vide FDR No. 14/2002 on 16.07.2002 for a period of 5 years. The interest payable on the deposit was 9% p.a. from 16.07.2002 to 15.07.2002 totally amounting to Rs.14,660/-. Therefore it is alleged that the total amount payable on the due date i.e. 16.07.2007 was Rs.47,485/-. OP sent an intimation letter dated 02.07.2007 addressed to Thippamma intimating the date of maturity of the deposit. It is alleged that Thippamma died on 23.10.2006 before maturity of the fixed deposit and the complainant was the sole legal heir of Thippamma. Further that the complainant approached the OP-Bank for payment of the maturity amount and OP-Bank directed the complainant to bring Succession Certificate as the original depositor had not nominated any person to receive the proceeds of the F.D. at the time of making the deposit. Then the complainant moved the Civil Court for obtaining Succession Certificate. Subsequently the complainant came to know that the Bank has prescribed a separate easier procedure for payment of F.D. amount to legal heirs in case the original deposit holder had died, in case there is no nomination in the FDR. It is alleged that thereafter the complainant withdrew the proceedings for obtaining the Succession Certificate and approached the OP-Bank and even issued notice dated 15.03.2010 for payment of the proceeds of F.D. and in spite of service of notice the OP neglected to follow the prescribed procedure and to pay the amount due and even did not reply the notice issued to it. Therefore the complainant has field the present complaint on 04.10.2010.
3. The OP admitted the fixed deposit made by Thippamma alleged in the complaint. It contended that when the complainant visited the OP Bank along with the intimation dated: 02.07.2007 and on learning that the original deposit holder had died earlier to it the then Manager informed the complainant to bring genealogical tree of the depositor from the concerned authority and legal heirs certificate and to state whether there was any will left by depositor with regard to the deposited amount, but the complainant did not turn up to the Bank with required particulars so as to enable the Bank to settle the claim as prescribed and she has not furnished the required documents. Therefore the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint stating that there was no deficiency in service.
4. The complainant filed her affidavit repeating the averments made in the complaint. She also filed the affidavits of two witnesses by name Srirama Reddy aged 52 years and one Nagarajappa aged 48 years who were well acquainted with the family of complainant. She also filed geological tree issued by jurisdictional Village Accountant and also produced the other relevant documents. The present Manager of the OP-Bank filed affidavit supporting the contentions taken in the version. The learned counsel for OP filed the guidelines issued by Head Office of OP-Bank for settlement of death claims in respect of deposits etc.,. We heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant proves that there was
deficiency in service on the part of OP?
Point No.2: If so, to which reliefs the complainant is entitled to?
Point No.3: What order?
6. After considering the records and the submissions of the parties our findings on the above points are as follows:
POINT No.1: The complainant is an illiterate lady. After receipt of intimation dated: 02.07.2007 she must have gone to OP-Bank. She claims that the then Manager instructed her to bring Succession Certificate and accordingly she applied for it before Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Srinivaspur, but when she came to know that the Bank can pay the amount on following certain procedure, she got dismissed the proceedings for Succession Certificate. Further that she again approached the OP-Bank and also got issued legal notice dated: 15.03.2010. The receipt of legal notice is not disputed. It is not contended by OP that any reply was given to the legal notice. The then Manager has not filed any affidavit stating that complainant was explained the procedure and she was asked to bring certain documents for settlement of the claim in case there was no nomination. The OP has no documentary evidence to show that such instruction was given to complainant. The Head Office of OP-Bank issued guidelines how to settle the claim in the case of depositors who died without nominating anyone to receive the amount. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we hold that, the then Manager of the OP-Bank had instructed the complainant to bring Succession Certificate for settlement of claim as alleged in the complaint. In the legal notice also it is stated that the Bank is unnecessarily insisting the production of Succession Certificate though there is other procedure for settlement of claim. At this stage also complainant was not intimated in writing to bring the required documents other than the Succession Certificate. Therefore the say of OP that they had instructed the complainant to comply the requirements stated in the guidelines for settlement of claim appears to be not true. It is a known fact that obtaining the Succession Certificate is a tedious job costing unnecessarily considerable expenses. It appears for that reason the Bank has prescribed easier method for settlement of claim for the benefit of the legal heirs of the depositor. It appears because of ignorance regarding the guidelines prescribed by Bank in such case or because of inadvertence the officials of OP-Bank have not properly guided the complainant. For the above reasons we hold Point No.1 in Affirmative.
POINT No. 2: Late. Thippamama had deposited Rs.32,825/- for a period of 5 years from 16.07.2002 and the rate of interest was 9% p.a. The deposit would become due on 16.07.2007. During argument the Learned Counsel for OP submitted that as per the prescribed norms of Bank monthly interest accrued due on the said deposit amount was being credited to S.B. account of depositor bearing No. 2531 and the monthly interest has been credited like that till the maturity of the deposit and the balance amount is still in the S.B. account. He also submitted that soon after maturity, the deposit could have been reinvested and such reinvestment would have earned interest at the prevailing rate. He submitted that as the deposit in the present case was not reinvested the complainant is not entitled to any subsequent interest. Considering the above facts, we think from due date, interest may be awarded on the deposit of Rs.32,825/- at 9% p.a. till its payment. In that circumstance we think it is not necessary to award compensation separately to complainant. In the present proceedings itself the OP may be directed to pay the balance amount outstanding in S.B. account No. 2531 to complainant with accrued interest on it till the date of payment.
From the affidavits and documents produced by the complainant and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we firmly believe that complainant is the sole legal heir of late. Thippamma and therefore she alone is entitled to receive the amount due. Hence point No.2 is held accordingly.
Point No.3: Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OP shall deposit Rs.32,825/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 16.07.2007 to the date of deposit along with balance amount with accrued interest outstanding in the S.B. account No. 2531, before this Forum within one month from the date of this order in full discharge of the fixed deposit receipt No. 019283 dated 16.07.2002 standing in the name of late. Thippamma.
On deposit of the above said amount and costs the same shall be paid to complainant on her executing Indemnity Bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety to reimburse the claim of third person if any over the FDR No. 019283 dated 16.07.2002 standing in the name of late. Thippamma.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 19th day of January 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
