The complainant is an account holder having S.B account No.24262 with the opp.parties and he is a consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has opened the account for the purpose of depositing an amount as fixed deposit for withdrawing the the interest for his livelihood. On 9.8.2002 the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.2,45,000/- as fixed deposit for a period upto 3 years which was subsequently renewed up to 9.8.2010.

The interest of the deposit was being drawn by the complainant through the above SB account till 11.9.2005. On 11.2.2006 when he approached the first opp.party to withdraw the interest he was not permitted for reasons known to the first opp.party only. The complainant is an age old and sick person. Therefore at the time of making the deposit he has allowed to include the name of his son K.P. Vinod in the account as a nominee. The then Manager of the Federal Bank, Anchal is a friend of Vinod and included the above said Vinod Kumar name as join account holder. The 1st opp.party is well aware of the fact that the amount is deposit ed in the bank by the complainant and nobody is having any manner of right over it. The above fixed deposit was renewed as per the instructions of the complainant . On 20.2.2006 the complainant issued an advocate notice to opp.parties requiring to allow him to withdraw the interest. But the first opp.party did not permit the complainant to withdraw the interest and hence the complaint.

The opp.parties 1 and 2 filed a joint version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint arose not out of any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The cause of action arose out of a dispute between the holders of the fixed deposit account opened and operated jointly and the same is purely in the nature of a civil dispute Who is the real owner of the amount deposited under the Fixed Deposit account or who is eligible to receive the interest from the said Fixed deposit and in what ratio etc are issues to be decided by a competent civil court. Until then the opp.party has got only the status of a garnishee and therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The alleged complaint is not out of any consumer dispute. The opp.party is always prepared and willing to disburse the principal amount along with the interest accrued at the agreed rate as per the direction of this Forum or a competent court. The averments in para 1 to 4 are false and hence denied.


The deposit was opened on 9.,8.2002 with A/c.No0.8875 for a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- initially for a period of one year in the joint names of the complaint and one K.P. Vinodkumar who was the first holder and the complainant is the second holder having common address. Subsequently the FD account was renewed . The periodical interest accrued in the account had been credited to the savings accounts of the complainant . The transfer of periodical interest to the account had to be stopped on 16.11.2005, since there was a dispute regarding withdrawal of interest between the joint account holders. The contention that his son K.P Vinod Kumar is only the nominee is false and hence denied. From the very beginning the account was opened and operated jointly. The averments in para 5 and 6 are false and hence denied. On 16.11.2005 the 1st opp.party had intimated the complainant that the bank has received written instruction from Sri. Vinod requesting to stop the transfer of interest accrued in the SB account referred to in the complaint

The 1st opp.party informed both the complainant as well as his advocate that the bank is prepared to disburse the principal amount as well as the accrued interest if they were able to sort out the matter and come up with any joint instructions. The averments in para 7 is not in accordance with the relevant rules and laws. One of the joint account holders of an account which is operated jointly has no right to operate the account independently in the absence of joint instructions and hence neither the complainant can withdraw the entire amount along with the accrued interest nor the opp.party has any right or duty to disburse amount to any one of the operators until the written joint instructions is filed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party and misconceived groundless false. Hence these opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint.


The 3rd opp.party filed a separate version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts . The complaint was filed suppressing material facts. An amount of Rs.2, 45,000/- was deposited by the 3rd opp.party who allowed the complainant who is none other than his father to withdraw the amount till 9.8.2003 , and for that purpose alone the name of the complainant was happened to be entered in the account.

The 3rd opp.party had deposited the amount for the purpose of constructing a home when the 3rd opp.party attempted to withdraw the amount the complainant made baseless contentions and disagreed to withdraw the amount . The complainant had made a strange contention that he had opened the FD account and the name of the 3rd opp.party was included only as a nominee. The said amount is the 3rd opp.party‘s share over the family property sold. There is an agreement among t the complainant, 3rd opp.party,. 3rd opp.party’s mother and sister which will reveal the truth. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. This opp.party has deposited the amount and so he has got every right to consider the instructions of the account holder and the complaint is liable to b e dismissed.


Points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

2. . Whether there. Is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties?

3. Reliefs and costs,

For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P5 are marked

Points:

Admittedly the Fixed Deposit of Rs.2,45,000/- in the opp.party bank is in the name of the complainant and 3rd opp.party jointly who are respectively father and son. There is also no dispute that originally the interest accrued on the Fixed Deposit was being credited in the account of the complainant and the payment was subsequently stopped which according to opp.parties 1 and 2 is as per the instruction of opp.party 3. It goes without saying that a depositor is entitled to get interest on his deposit. The entire interest accrued was being credited to the account of the complaint as per the standing instruction of the parties which was cancelled by the opp.parties 1 and 2 on the request of opp.party 3 The learned counsel for the complainant would argue that unilateral cancellation of standing instruction is unsustainable.

Through the complainant would state that the Fixed Deposit amount belongs to him and the name of opp.party 3 was included as a nominee the copy of FD receipt produced by opp.party 1shows that that contention is not true and the amount is in the joint names of the complainant and opp.party3 . Opp.party 3 has raised a dispute with regard to the right over the Fixed deposit amount can be seen from the evidence adduced. Such a dispute can be adjudicated by a competent civil court only and opp.party 3 ought to have approached the Civil Court for the same. But even after the expiry of 6 years he has not made any such movement is obvious from the non-production of any evidence in this regard


The learned counsel for the opp.party 1 and 2 argued that when money is deposited in the joint names unless it is proved that there was a manifest intention for the other person that it must go to the 2nd person under law the 2nd person can hold it only as a trustee, relying on the decision of the High Court of Kerala reported in 2008 [1] KLT SN 33 [case No.26] What was the intention behind the deposit in joint account by the complainant and opp.party 3 is not forth coming. The contention of the complainant is that he is the absolute owner of that amount. The instruction given to opp.party 1 bank by opp.party 3 regarding payment of interest to the complainant at the time of making deposit was terminated unilaterally. According to the complainant the bank should not have stopped payment of at least ½ the interest accrued to him as the opp.party 3 can issue instruction only in respect of his share of interest.


There is some force in that contention. The complainant has not sought for withdrawal of the fixed deposit. When two persons jointly makes a Fixed deposit the normal presumption is that they have equal rights over the amount until the otherwise is proved. Opp.party 3 can very well withdraw his consent regarding payment of his share of interest to the complainant. The action of the bank in stopping payment of interest to the complainant on the basis of such instruction can be appreciated for some time. But how long? The burden is on the person who issued the instruction to establish within a reasonable time that he alone has right over the FD amount land the entire interest which opp.party 3 has not cared to do. The opp.party 1 bank is not justified in not issuing any direction to opp.party 3 to produce authority within a reasonable time rather than relying on the instruction of opp.party 3 for more than 6 years and deny payment of at least lhis shares of interest to the complainant . In these circumstances the contention of the complainant that there is collusion between opp.parties 1 and 3 cannot be ignored. We feel that opp.party 1 bank should not have stopped payment of interest to the complainant indefinitely accepting the instruction of one of the account holder ignoring the right of the other person especially when opp.party 3 has not produced any material showing his absolute right prima facie over the Fixed Deposit and seek shelter on the alleged dispute between the parties


As pointed out earlier though opp.party 3 raised a contention in the version that he is the absolute owner who has deposited the FD amount and allowed the complainant to withdraw the interest as he is his father no material, worth believable, was produced to establish that contention. He has also not turned up to tender evidence. Opp.parties 1 and 2 have also did not adduce any evidence to show that the Fixed deposit amount absolutely belongs to opp.party 3 who has right to instruct stoppage payment of interest to the complainant . However opp.party 1 has produced a photocopy of the Fixed Deposit receipt along with their version which shows that the Fixed deposit was made jointly by the complainant and opp.party 3 . Had opp.party 3 any absolute right over the FD he would have filed suit immediately after the filing of this complaint. From the conduct of opp.party 3 in not approaching any civil court to get his rights over the Fixed deposit declared, after issuing instruction to stop payment of interest to the complainant who is none other than his father it is obvious that his only intention is to harass the complainant who is running from pillar to post to raise his livelihood. The complainant at the time of hearing submitted that he is unable to raise money to file a civil suit and that his inability is being utilized by his son . The lacks of bonafides on the part of opp.party 3 who is claiming absolute right over the Fixed deposit can be gathered from the prolonged inaction on his side.


The complainant is a senior citizen aged more than 65 years and having no known sources of income other than the interest received by him from the FD. Opp.party 3 has also no case that complainant has any other income. The complainant has not applied for withdrawal of amount but request for interest in respect of the Fixed deposit amount over which he has also right. In these circumstance we find that we shall be justified in issuing a direction that until the dispute is settled by the competent Civil Court the complainant must be given his share of interest..

In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opp.parties 1 and 2 to pay 50% of the interest accrued in the above FD to the complainant till the matter is adjudicated by competent civil court. No costs.