O   R   D   E   R

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from 27-10-2008 to 8-4-2013 and also to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards costs on the following averments:

          The 1^st complainant is the wife of Kaspa Ramurthy.  The 2^nd complainant is the daughter and complainants 3 to 7 are the sons of 1^st complainant.  The 1^st complainant and her husband deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- under a term deposit on 27-10-2003 for 36 months and the said deposit was matured by 24-10-2006 and the depositors are entitled to get the maturity amount with interest @ 6% p.a.   After maturity of term deposit the 1^st complainant and her husband demanded the O.Ps to refund the principal amount with interest but of no avail.  The husband of 1^st complainant went to the O.Ps in person and addressed letters calling upon them to pay the amount due but to no avail.  The husband of 1^st complainant died on 22-8-2010 leaving behind the complainants to succeed him.  The complainants have approached the O.Ps many a time and asked them to pay the maturity amount with interest but on one pretext or the other, the O.Ps postponed to pay the same.  Both the 1^st complainant and her husband suffered a lot mentally and physically for not making payment of the deposited amount by O.P’s.  They have spent huge amount for making travel to the offices of the O.Ps from their residence and suffered mental agony, discomfort and inconvenience.  Hence the complaint.

          The 2^nd O.P filed counter traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and has averred that since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complaint merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.  

          It is averred that the deceased Ramurthy and his wife i.e., 1^st complainant jointly deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- on 27-10-2003 with the 2^nd respondent Bank and the said deposit is either or the survivor and as such when Ramurthy died, 1^st complainant is entitled to receive the deposit amount and as the other complainants made a claim, the O.Ps did not pay the deposit amount to them.  It is averred that as there is no deficiency in service the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

          In support of complainant’s case the affidavit evidence of P.W.1 is filed and Ex.A.1 to A.6 are marked.   On behalf of O.Ps, the proof affidavit evidence of R.W.1 is filed.  Perused the material placed on record and heard the counsel for both the parties.

Now the point for consideration is whether there is deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps for not making payment of maturity amount to the complainant and her husband and whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs prayed for ?

          Points:-     Before adverting the merits of the case, we would like to mention the admitted facts.  It is an admitted fact that the 1^st complainant and her husband have deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 27-10-2003 as term deposit for 36 months and after the same was matured the depositors were entitled to get the deposited amount with interest at 6% p.a., and as per complainant after the said deposit was matured the 1^st complainant and her deceased husband approached the 2^nd O.P and requested to pay the amount due but of no avail.  In normal circumstances in a case of this nature, the Bank officials would intimate its depositors about maturity of a deposit and call upon them to come and receive the amount along with accrued interest and other benefits if any.  In this case no such intimation was given to the depositors i.e., the 1^st complainant and her deceased husband Ramurthy to come and receive the maturity amount.  As per Ex.A.2 and A.3 notices the depositors approached the O.Ps and requested them to pay the amount due.  Under Ex.A.4 postal acknowledgement, the O.Ps have received the notice but they did not respond to the same.  Since no reply was given by the O.Ps to the said notices an inference can be drawn to the fact that the contents of the said notices are true and correct.  As per contents of Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 the depositors have approached the O.Ps many a time and requested to pay the amount due and payable under Ex.A.1 bond to them but of no avail.  As per Ex.A.5 the husband of 1^st complainant died on 22-8-2010.  Ex.A.3 notice was given to O.P.1 on 8-7-2010.  When the said documents are taken into consideration it is manifest that the depositors have been making demand to the O.Ps to pay the amount due in person and through letters but of no avail.

          In the decisions in :-

1) 1 (2014) CPJ 139 (NC) : SHERRY LEASING PVT.LTD.,& ANR. Vs.KAMINI SAIGAL & ORS.,

(2) 1(2014) CPJ 1 (KERALA) : FRIENDS CHITS AND FINANCIERS & ANR., Vs. INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESS

(3) 1 (2014) CPJ 7b (CN) (WB) :  HDFC BANK LTD., & ANR Vs ASHOK KUMAR SINHA :  It is held : when the maturity amount becomes due and payable and is not paid to the depositor it amounts to deficiency in service and the bank is liable to pay the maturity amount along with interest.

          The learned counsel for O.Ps has contended that as the family members of 1^st complainant made a claim in the said amount, the same could not be paid to the depositors and as such there is no deficiency of service on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  To prove this contention no reliable evidence is placed on behalf of O.Ps.  Even if the above said contention is believed to be true such claim must have been made immediately after demise of husband of 1^st complainant only.  No explanation is forthcoming to believe as to why the O.Ps did not make payment of amount due to the depositors till the death of the husband of 1^st complainant, which occurred after nearly 4 years from the date of maturity of the said deposit. 

          In Para 9 of the counter, it is averred that “ the O.P submits that the Ramurty and 1^st complainant jointly deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- on 27-10-2003 with this respondent Bank.  The said deposit is either or the survivor, so, when Ramurty died 1^st complainant is entitled to receive the deposit amount, but other legal heirs also claiming the deposit amount.  They are not entitled to receive the above deposit amount, the same has been informed to them, but they are claiming above amount.  So, this respondent could not pay the deposit amount to complainants 2 to 7.  Only that reason the O.P could not pay the deposit amount.  This O.P submits that there is no deficiency of service rendered to the complainants at any time.  This O.P submits that they are ready to pay the deposit amount as per the deposit conditions to the 1^st complainant”.

          In view of the above said contentions made in the counter, the O.Ps are fully aware that the depositors alone are entitled to get the maturity amount but not their other family members.  They are also aware that in the event of death of one of the depositors, the other surviving depositor is alone entitled to get the amount due under Ex.A.1 bond.  Coming to case on hand the 1^st complainant and her husband are the only depositors of Ex.A.1 bond.  When her husband died she alone being the other depositor is entitled to get the amount from the O.Ps but for the reasons best known to the O.Ps they did not make payment of amount due under the said bond to the 1^st complainant till date.  As the contents of Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 are not contraverted by O.Ps by issuing any reply to the same it can safely be held that the same are true and correct.   As per its contents the 1^st complainant and her husband have visited the O.P’s many a time and made request to them to pay the maturity amount but to no effect.   Hence for the in action of the O.Ps the 1^st complainant and her husband must have suffered mental agony, discomfort and financial loss.  Since there is deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps for not making payment of the amount due under a Ex.A.1 term deposit to the 1^st complainant and her deceased husband for no just cause the O.Ps are not only liable to pay maturity amount with interest, but also liable to pay damages.

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the O.Ps to pay to the 1^st complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with interest @ 6 % p.a., from  27-10-2003 i.e., the date of deposit till 24-10-2006 on which date the deposit was matured and to pay interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of maturity till the date of realization.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay to the 1^st complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards damages for causing mental agony to the 1^st complainant and her deceased husband who are the depositors of the term deposit and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs which includes advocate fee of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).  The O.Ps are directed to comply the order within one month from today.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the  17^th day of August, 2015.

Member                                                           President.

C.C. 1 of 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

     For P.W.1                                                                  For R.W.1                                                                               

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 Xerox copy of Deposit Certificate dt.27-10-2003.
2. Ex.A.2 Xerox copy of representation dt.2-6-2009
3. Ex.A.3 Xerox copy of representation dt.8-7-2010
4. Ex.A.4 Two acknowledgement to the above said two representations
5. Ex.A.5 copy of death certificate dt,23.8.2010
6. Ex.A.6 family member certificate given by Tahsildar, Cheepurupalli.

For O.P:-   

NIL     

                                                                                      President.