O R D E R Per Sri T. ANJANEYULU, PRESIDENT: This complaint is filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on the 1st opposite party to return the title deeds dated 17-1-91 in the name of her late husband Sri BVR Appa Rao and in addition to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony, pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses. The brief averments in the complaint are: The husband of the complainant namely Sri BVR Appa Rao worked as cashier in the bank of opposite party No.1. During his lifetime he has applied for loan for house construction under staff scheme and also deposited the title deeds dated 17-1-91. After sanction of the loan late Appa Rao also availed the same and discharging the debt out of his salary income. Late Appa Rao married the complainant on 25-8-87. Later he died due to heart failure at NIMS hospital, Hyderabad on 31-3-1998. Leaving behind the complainant as his legal representative. Prior to his death he had executed a will on 09-03-98 in favour of complainant declaring that he had purchased a house plot out of the funds given by his wife and later on he has also constructed a house thereon and that in recent times he has been suffering from heart ailment and after his death, the above referred property shall absolutely belongs to his wife and none others have any right over it. The MRO has made enquiry about the death of the deceased Appa Rao and issued legal heir certificate in favour of the complainant. She has also obtained death certificate. On submission of the same, the bank opposite party No.1 has also paid death/retirement benefits of late Appa Rao to the complainant. She was also appointed and given a job in the bank on compassionate grounds, the complainant joined the job on 29-4-1999. She has also discharged the balance loan amount of her husband by deducting sum of Rs.2,015/- p.m. out of her salary and accordingly the account was closed by 04-12-04 and she was given statement of account by 31-12-04. But the opposite party failed to handover the title deeds of the plot deposited by her husband. She had made several representations on the bank officials including the Assistant General Manager, SBH at Vijayawada but they did not heeded to her requests. The complainant submits that she is the sole legal representative of her deceased husband and on due enquiry, the bank officials have paid the death benefits and also provided with a job and that she also discharged part of the debt amount and none of the family members of late Appa Rao objected for the same. Therefore, the bank officials ought to have returned the title deeds, but deliberately dragged on the matter. Their in action caused mental agony and it also amounted to deficiency of service. At lost they have written a letter dated 02-03-05 to obtain a succession certificate from the competent court. There is absolutely no necessity for the same and opposite party No.1 is delaying the delivery of the title deeds. Hence, the complaint. The brief facts of version of OP1 are as follows: The 1st opposite party has filed its version denying the material allegations made in the complaint. It is submitted that the complainant herself voluntarily written a letter dated 9-6-98 stating that her husband died intestate and no document was left devolving his estate on the complainant. This goes to show that the will referred by her in the complaint is a rank forgery. She did not mention any thing about the will in her letter dated 9-6-98. At the time of getting compassionate appointment in the bank she has undertaken to pay the balance outstanding amount in the housing loan account of her late husband, otherwise the bank officials could have insisted upon on the complainant to discharge the loan with the terminal benefits of her late husband. Therefore, she did not do any charity or favour to the bank in discharging the loan. The certificate issued by the MRO shows that the complainant is the wife of the deceased and as such she is found to be next legal heir to the deceased to receive the terminal benefits. The certificate issued by MRO is silent about other legal heirs of the deceased Sri BVR Appa Rao. The bank has information that the mother of the deceased employee who is the 1st class legal heir is still alive. The complainant was accordingly informed that all the 1st class legal heirs are entitled to share in the property of the deceased who died intestate and the claim will be settled among the legal heirs as per the procedure laid down by the bank. In the event of any dispute/counter claim between the legal heirs of the deceased, they have to obtain a succession certificate from competent court in respect of the property and the title deeds but the complainant has not complied the same and filed this vexatious complaint by inventing a will purportedly executed by late Sri BVR Appa Rao in order to deprive the rights of the mother of the deceased. The opposite party No.1 further submits that it has received a letter dated 30-3-06 from Smt Brugubanda Seethama, the mother of the deceased employee stating that her son died intestate on 31-3-98 while in the bank’s service and she is only 1st class legal heir of her deceased son to receive the title deeds deposited with the bank. Further she has information that the complainant, who is the widow of her deceased son after getting compassionate appointment in the bank, got remarried within one year of the death of her son and has not taken any care of her or did any financial help in her old age. She also came to know that the complainant trying to get title deeds by adopting unfair means and that she should not be given the same and as a mother and 1st class legal heir she alone is entitled for the documents and property. In the said circumstances, the title deeds could not be returned to the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of C.P.Act and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further the complainant is no more legal heir of deceased Appa Rao in view of her remarriage. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. The mother of the deceased Appa Rao got impleaded herself as 2nd opposite party by filing a petition by order dated 08-11-06. She has filed the following version: She has admitted that her son late Appa Rao during his lifetime worked as cashier in the bank and also obtained loan by depositing title deeds for construction of a house. She has also admitted that the complainant married her son late Appa Rao. However, she denied that her son executed a will on 9-3-98 in favour of the complainant. The alleged will is a rank forgery. It is not correct that the complainant is the sole legal heir of late Appa Rao. The legal heir certificate issued by MRO is a stage-managed certificate by suppressing the real facts. It has no legal sanctity and cannot be considered by a court of law unless a succession certificate is produced. It is incorrect to submit that no family members have raised objections in this regard. She has also got job in the bank after death of late Appa Rao. But it is denied for want of knowledge that the complainant discharged the loan amount. The complainant married late Appa Rao about 20 years back in the year 1987 and the said marriage is a love marriage. None of the family members of Appa Rao attended the said marriage. Subsequent to the marriage late Appa Rao got kidney problem. The complainant never attended the needs of late Appa Rao. This opposite party by selling the landed property incurred the expenditure of treatment of her deceased son for kidney ailment. The house site was in fact was purchased out of the income of the joint family. The other four brothers of late Appa Rao are equally entitled in the joint family property. Her son died in suspicious circumstances. The complainant in the old age of this opposite party obtained some signatures by making false representations and secured job in the bank. On 15-8-02 the complainant married one JVSS Sarma and also begot a son by name JV Sankara Sarma who is aged about 5 years. Therefore, she is not entitled to receive the title deeds, as she is not a legal heir of late Appa Rao. This opposite party is however entitled to receive the same in the background of the facts submitted above. Hence the version. The complainant has filed the chief affidavit explaining several facts with regard to her marriage with late Appa Rao, purchase of house plot, discharge of house loan both by her husband and herself, partition of joint family property among other brothers of late Appa Rao without giving any share to her, execution of will deed by her husband declaring absolute right in her favour in respect of house plot, the biased attitude of 1st opposite party towards her in returning the title deeds, and deliberate attempt on the part of 1st opposite party in obtaining a letter from her mother-in-law etc. She also got marked the documents vide Ex.A1 to A8. These documents include legal heir certificate issued by MRO, Guntur (Ex.A2), copy of will deed executed by her husband (Ex.A3) and show cause notice dt.12-09-2006 issued by AGM, Vijayawada. One Sri Pingala Rama Krishna Sarma S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, a bank employee of Kothapet Branch, SBH, Guntur filed his affidavit denying various allegations made in the complaint and as well as chief affidavit of the complainant. He also denied the will deed executed by late Appa Rao in favour of the complainant. They call it as forgery. It is alleged further that the complainant in order to grab away the house plot created the false and forged will purported to have been executed by her husband. It is alleged further that the complainant gave representation on 09-06-99 for return of the documents, wherein she stated that her husband died intestate on 31-03-1998. She did not refer to the alleged will dt.09-03-1998. This goes to show that the alleged will dt.09-03-98 is rank forgery. The mother of late Appa Rao submitted an application on 31-03-06 claiming herself class I legal heir, that the complainant got married another person after death of her son, as such the title deeds shall not be returned to her. The 1st opposite party has also got marked the representation of the mother Seethamma as Ex.B1, the representation of complainant dt.09-06-99 as Ex.B2. Now the points for determination are that - Whether the 1st opposite party has rightly directed the complainant to obtain succession certificate from the competent court?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for return of title deeds in respect of house plot from 1st opposite party?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of 1st opposite party in not returning the title deeds to the complainant?
- To what relief?
POINT No.1 The complainant alleges that 1st opposite party played high handed roll in securing the application from her mother-in-law (2nd opposite party) by tracing her out to thwart an attempt of the complainant in seeking return of the document as such the bank officials became biased towards her. Her views are further strengthened as the officials of 1st opposite party intended to take disciplinary action for alleged misconduct of her in approaching the District Forum for return of the documents, claiming compensation etc. by filing the copy of will deed of her husband. There is letter dt.12-09-06 vide Ex.A8 from SBH II, Vijayawada to the above effect. It is to be observed here that her husband died as long back as on 31-03-1998. There after she has been appointed on compassionate grounds on 29-04-99. The balance loan amount advanced to her husband has been discharged by her out of her salary amount. The loan was fully discharged by 31-12-2004. Thereafter, she made request for return of the title deeds and also made written representation on 18-01-2005 but in vein. This apart an earliest application dt.09-06-1999 vide Ex.B2 was admittedly filed by the complainant for the return of documents. The mother-in-law i.e., 2nd opposite party came into picture through her letter dt.31-03-2006 vide Ex.B1. The bank officials directed the branch vide letter No.R.II/Gr.IA/4446 dt.01-03-05 to settle the claim in favour of the legal heir of the deceased after following the laid down procedure of the bank. By that time, none of the family members much less the mother of the deceased came forth in claiming the documents except the complainant herself. Even then the Bank has miserably failed to decide the issue. At last the complainant was directed to obtain succession certificate, while making several allegations against her in their version and the affidavit of one of the Bank employee. Sec.372 to 379 of Indian Succession Act deals with the procedure for obtaining succession certificates from the competent court in respect of debts and securities. For the purpose of this part “security” means (a) any promissory note, debenture, stock or other security of the Central Government or of a State Government; (b) any bond, debenture, or annuity charged by Act of parliament 1 (of the United Kingdom) on the revenues of India; (c) any stock or debenture of, or share in, a company or other incorporated institution; (d) any debenture or other security for money issued by, or on behalf of, a local authority; (e) any other security which the 2 (State Government) may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare to be a security for the purpose of this part. The title deed in respect of house plot, which were deposited with the bank to secure loan amount, do not come within the meaning of “security” as shown above. The title deeds are in respect of immovable property; therefore, it becomes part of the immovable property. A succession certificate is normally granted in respect of debts and securities, to receive interest or dividends, on or to negotiate or transfer or both to receive interest or dividends on, and to negotiate or transfer, the securities or any of them. Therefore, the 1st opposite party and their officials were not right and proper in directing the complainant to obtain succession certificate from the competent court. Their action is no way justified. The point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the 1st opposite party. POINT No.2 The complainant basing on the legal heir certificate issued by the MRO was considered job on compassionate grounds. Of course, the certificate of MRO is for limited purpose as such bank has rightly considered the job and also in making terminal benefits of her husband. 2nd opposite party did not come forward to claim share in the terminal benefits of her deceased son. This may be due to mention of name of the complainant as nominee in the service register and other forms. After giving appointment, the complainant has discharged the major portion of the loan amount of her deceased husband out of her salary amount. There after she has admittedly filed an application dt.09-06-1999 vide Ex.B2 for return of the documents. The dispute did not arise by that time. The Bank alleges that they have information about surviving mother of the deceased. They did not furnish any particulars much less the date of their knowledge about 2nd opposite party. Admittedly her application was on 31-03-06 vide Ex.B1. This goes to show inordinate delay on the part of the bank in returning the document without valid ground. The complainant very much alleges that the bank has developed biased attitude towards her and deliberately procured Ex.B1 from 2nd opposite party. Whereas, 2nd opposite party makes several allegations against her daughter-in-law of late with regard to her second marriage and as such she divested the title to the property of her husband. At this juncture, prima-facie it is to be observed basing on the decision of the apex court in the case of Gajadhari Devi Vs. Gokhul AIR 1990 SC 46 that a widow who succeeds to the estate of her husband as an heir or one of the heirs in class I does not forfeit her inheritance because of her re-marriage subsequent to the death of her husband. The principle is that when once property is vested in her as a legal heir or as coheir, it is not divested because of her remarriage. Of course, these are all comprehensive issues to be decided in the Civil Court on the genuinity of the will deed, the share of the mother in the household plot as such the parties whom so ever advised shall get a relief accordingly from the competent Civil Court. As far as return of title deeds to the complainant is concerned, prima-facily she is entitled to the same in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and this act no way prejudice the rights of 2nd opposite party in getting declaration of her share in the house plot held by her son from the competent Civil Court. Therefore, 1st opposite party is hereby directed to return the title deeds in question to the complainant forth with. The point is answered accordingly. POINTS 3 & 4: In the light of aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party in causing inordinate delay despite of closure of loan account and returning the title deeds to the complainant who had discharged substantial part of the loan amount. The Bank has raised an objection that the complainant does not come within the meaning of consumer, as she is an employee of the Bank and there is no expected service by the bank. It is to be observed here that original loanee was her husband. She is a legal heir of him. In that capacity, she has discharged the debt of her husband out of her self-earned funds. This is a consideration for doing the service reciprocally by the Bank in returning the documents. Mere because she became an employee of the bank subsequently, she does not loose her status as a legal heir. Therefore, we hold that the present complaint is very much maintainable before this Forum as it relates to banking service. The point is answered accordingly. The complainant is expected to suffer mental agony during all the period when she was kept in waiting while making insinuations against her character. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for reasonable amount of compensation on this count apart from legal expenses. In the result, the complaint is allowed with costs in terms as indicated below: 1. The 1st opposite party is hereby directed to hand over the title deeds deposited by late BVR Appa Rao in respect of house plot, to the complainant forthwith. This action on the part of bank shall no way prejudice the rights of 2nd opposite party. 2. As this case involves complexity of facts and law and issues like genuinity of the will deed of late BVR Appa Rao, declaration of rights of the parties in respect of household plot are involved, the parties are advised to get them decided in a competent Civil Court. 3. We further direct 1st opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards mental agony, pain and suffering of the complainant. 4. A further sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) is awarded towards legal expenses, which shall be born by 1st opposite party. 5. The aforesaid amounts shall be paid within the period of one month from the date of this order. Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, dated this the 3rd day of July, 08. Sd/- x x x PRESIDENT Sd/- x x x MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE No oral evidence is adduced on either side DOCUMENTS MARKED For Complainant : Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS | A1 | --- | Copy of Death Certificate of BVR Appa Rao | A2 | --- | Copy of legal heir certificate issued by MRO | A3 | --- | Copy of will executed by BVR Appa Rao | A4 | 18-01-05 | O/c. of letter issued by complainant to the Asst. General Manager. SBH, Vijayawada. | A5 | 01-03-05 | Copy of letter issued by opposite party | A6 | --- | Copy of account statement of BVR Appa Rao issued by SBH, Kothapet, Guntur. | A7 | 08-02-05 | Copy of debt clearance letter issued by opposite party | A8 | 12-09-06 | Copy of show cause notice issued by AGM, Vijayawada. |
For Opposite Party : B1 | 31-03-06 | Copy of letter issued by 2nd opposite party to the 1st opposite party | B2 | 09-06-99 | Copy of letter by heirs of deceased borrower under housing scheme. |
Sd/- x x x PRESIDENT
......................C. Racehl Devavaram
......................T.ANJENEYULU | | 
