Act for an order directing the opposite parties to disburse the fixed deposit amount of `3,00,000 with 10% interest till realization and to pay `45,000 as compensation and `15000 as cost.

          The complainant’s case is that they are the nominees of Smt. Cheeyya A., Panneri House, Azhikode was a fixed deposit holder of opposite party, Society dated 07.12.2009 with due date on 07.12.2010 for an amount of `3,00,000 and after deposit, the deceased Chiyya informed the complainants about the deposit and the original receipt was handed over to them stating that they are the nominees.  The above Chiyya died on 30.12.2009 and the same was informed to the 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party required the complainants to file an application for return of amount at maturity.  After maturity the complainants demanded to return the amount, the opposite party postponed payments with one or other reason.   The opposite party, directed the complainants to produce legal heirship certificate and death certificate and were produced and requested to release the F.D.  The opposite party withheld the payment by saying that all the legal heirs are entitled to get the amount.  The complainants issued a notice to the opposite party, but they kept mum without issuing any reply or releasing the above amount.  So the complainants filed a petition before Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Joint Registrar has issued a direction to disburse the amount to the nominee, but the 1^st opposite party failed to comply the order. So in order to get the F.D. amount, the intervention of the Forum is necessary.  Hence this complaint. 

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite parties appeared and filed their version admitting that the deceased Chiyya was a F.D. holder and deposited `3,00,000 for a period of 12 months and also admits that the above FD holder passed away on 30.12.2009.  The application form for fixed deposit had no provision for keeping nominee for the deposit and the name of the complainants have been written down at the bottom of application form.  Usually if the depositor suggests nominees, their names wills be mentioned in the place provided for the same, above the depositor’s signature.  Eventhough there is a nominee suggested as per Society’s provision, the nominee can never exclude the right of the legal heirs.  As per law nominee is a trustee and care taker of the assets but not owner.  So legal heirs are entitled to the deceased’s assets.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the nominee of a depositor does not get ownership of the money in the account after death of depositor.  According to Section 45-2A of the Banking Regulation Act, the nominee has got all the right of the depositor as far as the depositor’s account is concerned.  The money in the account will form part of the estate of deceased depositor and devolved according to the rules of succession.   The opposite party is bound to verify who are the legal heirs of the deceased. On 22.02.2010, opposite party received a written complaint from E. Shivadasan, E. Geetha and E. Usha children of Cheeya’s sister saying that the complainants under the misrepresentation as nominees are trying to get Chiyya’s deposit released in their name excluding the real legal heirs.  Meanwhile the complainants referred the matter to Assistant Registrar (General), Kannur and get reply that the Society must do the needful after getting the legal heir ship certificate.  The family membership certificate produced by the complainant, issued by Village Officer, Azhikode itself shows that the complainants are not the sole legal heirs of the deceased depositor.  Regarding the disposal of the deposit amount all the legal heirs have to decide themselves and this opposite party has no vested interest. As the other legal heirs of deceased Cheeya has given a complaint about the release of amount in the name of complainants herein, the opposite party is not in a position to release the deposit solely in the name of the complainant.  The opposite party has never gave an assurance to the complainants that the deposit will be released only in their names.   The matters are to be settled between the legal heirs of late depositor and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.         Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

2.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3.         Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 and Ext.B1.

          The case of the complainant is that they are the nominees of late Smt. Cheeya, the FD holder of `3,00,000 before the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party and hence they are entitled to get the above said amount. In order to prove their case the complainants have produced verified copy of fixed deposit receipt, Death Certificate, family membership certificate, copy of complaint filed before the J.R., Kannur, Copy of order issued by J.R., Kannur.  The 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party also produced Ext.B1 order of the Kerala Co-operative Ombudsmen.  Admittedly the deceased Chiyya was a fixed deposit holder of `3,00,000 before opposite party.  But the complainant contended that they are the nominees and they are entitled to get the amount.  But they have filed petitions before Co-operative Ombudsman, but the Ombudsman was pleased to dismiss the petition by saying that nomination is invalid, since two persons were shown as nominee.  Similarly the complainant has filed another complaint before the J.R. of Co-operative Society and the Society was ordered to release the amount to nominees according to the legally valid succession certificate.  But the complainant has produced a family relationship certificate before the Forum.  It is not a valid succession or legal heirship certificate.  Moreover even as per Ext.A3 there are 23 persons who were the sisters, brothers and their children.  The complainant has not produced any documents to prove that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased Cheyya.  Moreover the opposite party has expressed their willingness to release the amount by producing legal heirship certificate. The complainant has not produced any declaration form the competent court of law also before the opposite party showing that they are entitled to get the fixed deposit.  The nominee of a depositor does not get ownership upon the estate of a deceased, since the fixed deposit is also the estate of the deceased.  Above all the subject matter of the case is with respect to the legal right alienated to them after the death of a person.  So it is a civil dispute which has to be decided by a competent court of law.   The complainant has not produced any order from the Civil Court.  Then only the opposite party can release the amount to the complainants and other legal heirs.  So we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  The complainant can approach a civil count for proper remedy.  So the complaint is liable to be dismissed and passed orders accordingly.

          In the result complaint dismissed.  No cost.

                              Sd/-                    Sd/-               Sd/-                                                   

                       President               Member          Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Copy of Fixed Deposit receipt.

A2.  Death Certificate of Account holder.

A3.  Legal heirship certificate.

A4.  Complainant copy.

A5.  Letter sent by Registrar.

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1.  Copy of the order of the Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman

        dated 28.02.2012.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant.

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT