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. 26/2011 Filed on 28.01.2011
Dated : 31.07.2012
Complainant :
Blossy Annet, D/o Antonitta Marshal, 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 complainant is a permanent resident at Kazhakkuttom and 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 complainant is not a member of the opposite party society, that complainant's deposit was accepted by opposite party when she was introduced to the society by a former employee of the society called Helen Yesudas who died subsequent to the acceptance of deposit of Rs. 30,000/- with a maturity value of Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant, that the said deposit is having number 2661 dated 12.05.2003, that as per the terms of the F.D the deposit of Rs. 30,000/- would mature on 12.05.2010, that as per the terms of the deposit, opposite party has to disburse Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant on 12.05.2010, that soon after the maturity date, complainant approached the opposite party with original deposit receipt and claimed maturity value which opposite party did not give, that on enquiry it was informed by opposite party that the maturity value of the deposit will be issued to the legally entitled complainant 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 depositor 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. 67,200/- 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. Complainant is not a consumer. Complainant is not a depositor 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 doubling scheme signed by her in the deposit application and complainant is alien to the society. The name Blossy Annet is reflected in the deposit account for Rs. 30,000/- on 12.05.2003 and that as per records the said deposit has already matured on 12.05.2010. 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 deposit 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. 30,000/- 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 complainant 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:-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the F.D amount with interest thereon?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P3. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D3.
Points (i) to (iii):- There is no dispute regarding the F.D of Rs. 30,000/- with the opposite party vide No. 2661 dated 12.05.2003. It has been the case of the complainant that complainant is not a member 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 complainant that she has deposited Rs. 30,000/- on 12.05.2003 on introduction to the society by a former employee of the society called Helen Yesudas. It has also been the case of the complainant that after acceptance of the said deposit by opposite party, Helen Yesudas died and after due date of the deposit, complainant approached the opposite party society with original deposit receipt and claimed the maturity value of the same. But opposite party did not release the amount and informed the complainant that the said deposit will be returned to the legally entitled complainant only on production of legal heirship certificate of the deceased Helen Yesudas. The very case of the complainant is that Helen Yesudas who was only made an introduction of the depositor to the society and Helen Yesudas has no legal right or legal claim against the proceeds of the said deposit. Complainants' evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant and Exts. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the copy of the fixed deposit receipt dated 12.05.2003. As per Ext. P1 Rs. 30,000/- received from Blossy Annet C/o Helen Yesudas, SC No. 12007 M No. 1029 CED as a deposit repayable 84 months after date with interest at the rate of doubling. Due date is 12.05.2010, maturity value is Rs. 60,000/-. On a bare reading of the said F.D receipt, it is crystal clear that the deposit is in the name of Blossy Annet thereby after due date Blossy Annet is entitled to get the maturity value of the said deposit. Further the F.D receipt is with the complainant. Ext. P2 is the copy of advocate notice dated 25.11.2010 issued by complainant to opposite party. Ext. P3 is the copy of the acknowledgement card. Complainant has been cross examined by opposite party. In her cross examination, complainant as PW1 has deposed that she had deposited Rs. 30,000/- in F.D with opposite party society as she was introduced to the society by Helen Yesudas, an employee of the VSSC. PW1 has deposed further that Helen Yesudas is her mother's younger sister. PW1 has deposed that she has no knowledge as to whether Jaxon Tedy, S/o Helen Yesudas has approached the opposite party to claim the F.D amount. PW1 has further deposed that F.D receipt is in her name as such she alone can claim the amount. Opposite party has produced Exts. D1 to D3. Ext. D1 is the copy of the application for fixed deposit. Ext. D2 is the copy of the letter from Jaxon Tedy to opposite party claiming proceeds of the aforesaid deposit. Ext. D3 is the copy of the reply to the legal notice (Ext. P2) issued by opposite party. There is another similar complaint as C.C No. 25/2011 against this opposite party. The stand of the opposite party in both the cases is the same and the counsels appeared for opposite parties in both the cases are one and the same and counsels for both the complainants are one and the same. Opposite party has been cross examined in C.C. No. 25/2011 by the complainant therein. Opposite party has the same deposition in both cases. In her cross examination in C.C. No. 25/2011 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 deposit. 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 it is crystal clear that the amount was deposited in the name of the complainant in the C/o Helen Yesudas. We cannot overlook the submission made by the complainant 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 it would appear that Helen Yesudas is an introducer of the actual depositor to the society. Now Helen Yesudas is no more. As an introducer, even if Helen Yesudas is alive, she could not claim the said amount since fixed deposit receipt is issued in the name of complainant, thereby we are of the view that the legal heir of Helen Yesudas has no right to claim the proceeds of the deposit and opposite party has also no right to file impleading petition on behalf of the legal representative of the deceased Helen Yesudas. Admittedly, deposit receipt is issued in the name of Blossy Annet. Ext. P1 is in the name of Blossy Annet C/o Helen Yesudas. As per Ext. P1 the maturity value of the deposit is Rs. 60,000/- on 12.05.2010. Even though complainant approached the opposite party to get the F.D amount released, opposite party has not responded positively. The said amount is still with the opposite party. Opposite party is bound to release the amount to the complainant with reasonable interest at 8% per annum from the date of maturity. As regards Ext. P1 deposit it is apparent that the deposit is in the name of Blossy Annet C/o Helen Yesudas. Here 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 Blossy Annet she is entitled to get the said amount released from the opposite party bank. As per Ext. P1 amount deposited is Rs. 30,000/- and date of deposit is 12.05.2003. The due date of the deposit is 12.05.2010. On due date complainant has the right to claim the said amount. Even though 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 amount in the name of complainant will definitely amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for which complainant is entitled to get compensation also.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party shall release the matured value of Ext. P1 F.D Receipt No. 2661 dated 12.05.2003 with 8% interest per annum from the date of maturity (i.e;12.05.2010) till realization to the complainant. Opposite party shall also pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs.
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 31st day of July 2012.
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 26/2011
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - Blossy Annet
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt dated 12.05.2003
P2 - Copy of advocate notice dated 25.11.2010
P3 - Copy of acknowledgement card.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
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 reply notice dated 07.02.2011.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
