BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 25/2011 Filed on 28.01.2011

Dated : 31.07.2012

Complainants :

1. Mary Rosette, D/o Antonitta Marshal, Carmel Bhavan, Attinkuzhi, Kazhakkuttom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 582.

    

2. Mary Elan, D/o Mary Rosette represented by her mother, guardian Mary Rosette, residing at Carmel Bhavan, Attinkuzhi, Kazhakkuttom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 582.

    

(By adv. P.P. Balakrishnan Nair)

Opposite party :

The Secretary, Space Centre Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. No. T 1388, ISRO P.O, Thiruvananthapuram -22.

(By adv. P. Krishnankutty Nair)

This O.P having been taken as heard on 06.07.2012, the Forum on 31.07.2012 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that 2^nd complainant is the daughter of the 1^st complainant, that opposite party is Space Centre Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. No. T 1388 represented by its Secretary, that opposite party is dealing with so many transactions like accepting fixed deposits, disbursement of loan facilities to its members who are generally employees in ISRO, that opposite party also accepts fixed deposits from non-members on the condition that deposit from non-members will be accepted only when they are introduced to the society by a member of the society, that complainants are not members of the opposite party society, that complainants' deposits were accepted by opposite party when they were introduced to the society by a former employee of the society called Helen Yesudas who died subsequent to the acceptance of deposits of Rs. 11,000/- from the 1^st complainant and Rs. 20,000/- from the 2^nd complainant through 1^st complainant, that the said deposits are having numbers 560 dated 14.09.2006 and 2660 dated 09.05.2003, that as per the terms of the F.D 9% is the rate of interest for Rs. 11,000/- and 18% for Rs. 20,000/-, that the deposit of Rs. 11,000/- would become due on 14.09.2009 while the deposit of Rs. 20,000/- would mature on 09.05.2010, that as per the terms of the deposit, opposite party has to disburse Rs. 13,970/- and Rs.40,000/- on 14.09.2009 ad 09.05.2010 to the complainants from the date of maturity, that soon after the maturity date, complainant approached the opposite party with original deposit receipts and claimed maturity value which opposite party did not give, that on enquiry it was informed by opposite party that the maturity value on both the deposits will be issued to the legally entitled complainants only on production of legal heirship certificate due to the former employee of the society, that the late Helen Yesudas who was only made an introduction of the depositors to the society and who has no legal right or legal claim against the proceeds of the deposit. Even after repeated demands opposite party has not cared to settle the matter by paying the proceeds of the deposits. Thereafter complainant sent registered notice to opposite party for which opposite party did not show any response. The action of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to pay Rs. 59,155/- with 18% interest along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as costs.

Opposite party filed version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that complaint is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, that complainants are not consumers, that complainants are not depositors either, that the society accepts fixed deposits only from its members and associate members who have access to the premises which is a prohibited area for non-members. The statement that there exists condition for accepting deposits from non-members that a member should introduce the non-member is not correct. One member of the opposite party, viz, Helen Yesudas, who is no more, had deposited money in fixed deposits and doubling scheme signed by her in the deposit application and complainants are alien to the society. The names such as Mary Rosette and Mary Elan are reflected in the deposit/doubling scheme accounts for Rs. 11,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- dated 14.09.2006 and 09.05.2003 respectively, that as per records the said deposits have already matured on 14.09.2009 and 09.05.2010. The computation of interest for the F.D and doubling scheme are untenable and violative of the rules and regulation for the payment of interest. Further the doubling scheme will not attract further interest, that no fixed deposit will earn interest unless it is renewed or automatic renewal is contemplated in the deposit application made by the depositors, that the only legal heir of the deceased depositor late Helen Yesudas, Jaxon Tedy had staked a claim with the society for the proceeds of the above deposits made by his mother in various names, which is known to the complainants too. It is not true that the late Helen Yesudas is only an introducer, but a depositor as per rules of the society. It is true that certificate of deposit of Rs. 11,000/- is received by the opposite party, but without any concurrence of the legal heir of the deceased, this opposite party is unable to pay the proceeds applicable. Claim for interest is huge and beyond rules of deposits, that after receiving the notice from the lawyer of the complainants a befitting reply has also been sent, that opposite party has not violated any principles of natural justice and did not commit any deficiency in service. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainants are entitled to get the F.D amounts with interest thereon?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs?

    

In support of the complaint, 1^st complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P4. In rebuttal opposite party has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D4.

Points (i) to (iii):- There is no dispute regarding two fixed deposits vide No. 560 for Rs. 11,000/- dated 14.09.2006 and No. 2660 for Rs. 20,000/- dated 09.05.2003 with the opposite party. It has been the case of the complainants that complainants are not the members of the society, but opposite party accepts deposits from non-members on the condition that they should be introduced to the society by a member of the society. It has been the case of the complainants that they have deposited Rs. 11,000/- on 14.09.2006 in the name of the 1^st complainant and Rs. 20,000/- on 09.05.2003 in the name of the 2^nd complainant on introduction to the society by a former employee of the society called Helen Yesudas. It has also been the case of the complainants that after acceptance of the said deposits by opposite party, Helen Yesudas died and after due date of the deposits, complainants approached the opposite party society with original deposit receipts and claimed the maturity value of the same. But opposite party did not release the amount and informed the complainants that the said deposits will be returned to the legally entitled complainants only on production of legal heirship certificate of the deceased Helen Yesudas. The very case of the complainants is that Helen Yesudas who was only made an introduction of the depositors to the society and Helen Yesudas has no legal right or legal claim against the proceeds of the said deposits. Complainants' evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the 1^st complainant and Exts. P1 to P4. Ext. P1 is the copy of the fixed deposit receipt dated 09.05.2003. As per Ext. P1 opposite party had received Rs. 20,000/- from Mary Elan C/o C. Helen Yesudas, SC No. 12007 M No. 1029 CED Admn Asst A, as a deposit repayable 84 months after date with interest at the rate of doubling. Due date is 09.05.2010, maturity value is Rs. 40,000/-. On a bare reading of the said F.D receipt, it is crystal clear that the deposit is in the name of Mary Elan thereby after due date Mary Elan is entitled to get the maturity value of the said deposit. Further the F.D receipts are with the complainants. Ext. P2 is the copy of the deposit receipt dated 14.09.2006. As per Ext. P2 opposite party received Rs. 11,000/- from Mary Rosette, C/o Helen Yesudas SC No. 12007 M No. 1029 CED as fixed deposit. The amount is repayable after 36 months with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Due date of deposit is 14.09.2009. A bare reading of Ext. P2 reveals that opposite party had issued the said receipt in the name of Mary Rosette. Ext. P3 is the copy of advocate notice dated 24.11.2010 issued by complainants to opposite party. Ext. P4 is the copy of the acknowledgement card. 1^st complainant has been cross examined by opposite party. In her cross examination 1^st complainant as PW1 has deposed that it is due to the submission by Helen Yesudas that if some amount is deposited in opposite party's bank, complainant would get higher interest and it is on the basis of the submission by Helen Yesudas complainants were introduced to the society by Helen Yesudas. PW1 has deposed further that it is her money deposited in opposite party's bank. She has further deposed that the deposit receipts were issued by opposite party in the name of 1^st and 2^nd complainants. When asked if Helen Yesudas was alive on date of maturity of the deposit, who will receive the deposit amount, PW1 said the amount will be received by the complainants. Opposite party's evidence consisted of oral testimony of the opposite party as DW1 and Exts. D1 to D4. Ext. D1 is the copy of the application for fixed deposit. In the said application the name of the depositor is mentioned as Mary Rosette C/o Helen Yesudas. In the nominee column it is written as Mary Elan (daughter). Ext. D2 is the copy of the letter from Jaxon Tedy to opposite party claiming proceeds of the aforesaid deposits. Ext. D3 is the copy of the application addressed to opposite party by Marshal C. Netto. Ext. D4 is the copy of the reply to the legal notice (Ext. P3) issued by opposite party. Opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant. In her cross examination opposite party as DW1 has deposed that the deposits were restricted to members of the society only. If non-members deposit in the care of any member the receipt will be issued in the name of the depositor in the C/o member. She has further deposed that retired employees of the VSSC are called associate members. DW1 has further deposed that the application form for fixed deposit is signed by Helen Yesudas. She has admitted that she was not the Secretary at the time of making fixed deposits. DW1 has denied the submission put forward by the complainant that those non-members of the society who make deposits in it are called associate members. In re-examination when asked whether Helen Yesudas is a depositor or introducer, DW1 mentioned Helen Yesudas as a depositor. It is pertinent to point out that in the course of proceedings of the complaint, opposite party has filed an application to implead Jaxon Tedy as additional opposite party. It should be noted that as per Ext. D2 Jaxon Tedy has filed a letter to the opposite party society to get the proceeds of the aforesaid deposits. Jaxon Tedy never directly appeared before the court and filed an application to implead himself in the party array in the complaint. We do not know what is the interest of the opposite party herein to move such an impleading petition before this court. Opposite party has no right to file such an application upon which the said impleading petition was dismissed. On perusal of Exts. P1 and P2 it is crystal clear that the amount was deposited in the name of 1^st and 2^nd complainants in the C/o Helen Yesudas. We cannot overlook the submission made by the complainants that non-members are permitted to deposit in opposite party's bank provided they should be introduced by a member of the society, that is the reason why in the fixed deposit receipt introducer's name is mentioned along with the depositors' name. From Exts. P1 & P2 it would appear that Helen Yesudas is an introducer of the actual depositors to the society. Now Helen Yesudas is no more. As an introducer, even if Helen Yesudas is alive, she could not claim the said amounts since fixed deposit receipts are issued in the name of complainants 1 & 2, thereby we are of the view that the legal heir of Helen Yesudas has no right to claim the proceeds of the deposits and opposite party has also no right to file impleading petition on behalf of the legal representative of the deceased Helen Yesudas. Admittedly, deposit receipts are issued in the name Mary Elan and Mary Rosette. Ext. P1 is in the name of Mary Elan C/o Helen Yesudas. As per Ext. P1 the maturity value of the deposit is Rs. 40,000/- on 09.05.2010. Admittedly, Mary Elan, the 2^nd complainant herein is a minor. This complaint has been filed by her mother Mary Rosette, the 1^st complainant. 2^nd complainant is entitled to get the maturity value of Rs. 40,000/- on due date. Even though 1^st complainant on behalf of 2^nd complainant approached the opposite party to get the F.D amount released, opposite party has not responded positively. The said amount is with the opposite party. Opposite party is bound to release the amount to the 2^nd complainant with reasonable interest at 9% per annum from the date of maturity. Since 2^nd complainant is a minor it is not just and fair to release the said amount to the 1^st complainant. We have to protect the interest of the minor as such we find it is just and fair to deposit the maturity value of F.D Receipt No. 2660 (Rs. 40,000/-) with 8% interest in the name of 2^nd complainant in fixed deposit till she attains majority. On attaining majority 2^nd complainant can withdraw the said amount. As regards Ext. P2 deposit it is apparent that the deposit is in the name of Mary Rosette C/o Helen Yesudas. Here also Helen Yesudas is seemed to be an introducer, thereby the legal representative of Helen Yesudas has no legal interest over the same. Since opposite party has issued deposit receipt in the name of Mary Rosette she is entitled to get the said amount released from the opposite party bank. As per Ext. P2 amount deposited is Rs. 11,000/- on 14.09.2006 at the rate of 9% interest per annum. The due date of the deposit is 14.09.2009. On the due date 1^st complainant has the right to claim the said amount. Even though 1^st complainant claimed the amount, opposite party did not release the same. Hence we are of the considered opinion that as the money has been in the hands of the opposite party even after the due date, opposite party is bound to give interest on the matured amount from due date. Non-releasing of the aforesaid F.D amounts in the name of complainants will definitely amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for which complainants are entitled to get compensation also.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party shall release the matured value of Ext. P2 Fixed Deposit Receipt vide No. 560 dated 14.09.2006 with 8% interest per annum from the date of maturity (that is 14.09.2009) till realization to the 1^st complainant. Opposite party shall deposit the matured value of Rs. 40,000/- vide fixed deposit No. 2660 dated 09.05.2003 with 8% interest from the date of maturity (that is 09.05.2010) to the date of receipt of this order in the name of the 2^nd complainant in F.D till the 2^nd complainant attains majority. Opposite party shall hand over the new F.D receipt in the name of the 2^nd complainant to 1^st complainant and on attaining majority, 2^nd complainant can withdraw the F.D amount. Opposite party shall also pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs to 1^st complainant.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of July 2012.

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 25/2011

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Mary Rosette. M

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt dated 09.05.2003

P2 - Copy of deposit receipt dated 14.09.2006

P3 - Copy of advocate notice dated 24.11.2010.

P4 - Copy of acknowledgement card.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Radhamani Amma

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of application for fixed deposit.

D2 - Copy of letter from Jaxon Tedy to opposite party

D3 - Copy of application addressed to opposite party

D4 - Copy of reply notice dated 07.02.2011.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb