Srinivas Kamath,

S/o. Devaraya Kamath,

R/o. Near C.P.C. Complex,

Main Road, Puttur,

Dakshina Kannada. …….. COMPLAINANT



(Advocate: Sri.Sanjay D.)



VERSUS



The Manager,

South Kanara Goldsmith’s

Industrial Co-Op. Society,

Main Road, Puttur,

Dakshina Kannada. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY


The Complainant submits that his mother late Sunitha Bai had kept an amount of Rs.1,500/- in the fixed deposit as per account No.6217. The Complainant’s mother died on 13.7.2008 leaving behind Complainant and other children as her legal heirs. Thereafter the Complainant has approached the Opposite Party with a request to repay the above Fixed Deposit amount. The Opposite Party after considering the request has issued a letter dated 9.9.2008 to the Complainant with a request to furnish the genealogy and consent letter of the remaining legal heirs. As per the above letter of the Opposite Party the Complainant has furnished the documents to the Opposite Party.

The Opposite Party has refused to pay the above amount to the Complainant by giving lame excuses. Thereafter the Complainant issued a lawyer’s registered notice dated 27.9.2008 and the Opposite Party issued a reply stating that the Complainant should obtain succession certificate in order to get the payment. Feeling aggrieved by the above service, the Complainant filed the above complaint before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,500/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 13.7.2008 till payment and also claimed Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and costs of the proceedings.

2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD.

Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version raised a contention stating that the Complainant is not a consumer. The above complaint is filed is in the form of counterblast to the recovery proceedings initiated by the Opposite Party before the Registrar of Co-Operative Society Mangalore in respect of a separate loan raising a dispute under section 70 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act against the brother of the Complainant.

The banking procedure and practice requires a person claiming to be a legal representative of a deceased depositor to furnish a Succession Certificate, accordingly the Complainant was told of the same. The said procedure is adopted in order to avoid double claims by the rival claimants. All the children of the depositor have share in the money. There is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and claiming succession certificate is legal and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the Complainant is a consumer? and the complaint is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?


(iii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?


(iv) What order?


4. In support of the complaint, Sri.Srinivas Kamath (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C5 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.S.N.Jagadish (RW1), Branch Manager of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Both parties have produced notes of arguments. Opposite Party produced one citation.

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows: Point No.(i): Affirmative.

Point No.(ii) to (iv): As per the final order.

Reasons


5. Point No. (i):

In the instant case, it is undisputed fact that the Complainant’s mother one Sunitha Bai is the deposit holder as per account No.6217 with the Opposite Party society and the above said Sunitha Bai died on 13.7.2008 leaving behind the Complainant and other children as her legal heirs. The section 2 (1) (b) makes it clear that the Complainant means –

i) a consumer; or

ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or under any other law for the time being in force; or

iii) the Central Government or any State Government,

iv) One or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest;

who or which makes a complaint;

v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative.

In the present case, admittedly the Complainant’s mother is the fixed deposit holder with the Opposite Party society died on 13.7.2008 so the Complainant is one of the legal heir of deceased Sunitha Bai hence the Complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable. Point No.(i) held in favour of the Complainant.

Point No.(ii) to (iv):

In the present case, the dispute with regard to release of the Fixed Deposit amount i.e., 1,500/- deposited by the mother of the Complainant late Sunitha Bai with the Opposite Party society.

It is undisputed fact that late Sunitha Bai had kept an amount of Rs.1,500/- in the fixed deposit as per account No.6217. Admittedly the Complainant’s mother died on 13.7.2008.

Now the point in dispute is that to release the fixed deposit amount in favour of the Complainant, Opposite Party raised succession certificate.

Now the point for consideration is that whether the succession certificate demanded by the Opposite Party society is just and reasonable to consider the claim of the Complainant in the given case?

In the matter of proof it would be relevant to refer Ex C2 is the letter dated 9.9.2008 issued by the Manager of the Opposite Party society reveals that the manager requested the Complainant to furnish the genealogy and the consent letter of the remaining legal heirs of the deceased Sunitha Bai to refund the amount under the fixed deposit. The Ex C3 is the legal notice issued by the Complainant dated 27.9.2008 reveals that as per the request of the manager the Complainant submitted the genealogy and also the consent letter issued by the legal heirs of the late Sunitha Bai. The said legal notice was served to the Opposite Party.

On perusing the above documents as well as the oral evidence led by the parties before this FORA, it reveals that the amount kept by the Complainant’s mother was a small amount and as per the request of the manager of the Opposite Party society, Complainant submitted the genealogy issued by the concerned department and also the consent letter issued by the other legal heirs of the Sunitha Bai. The receipt of the above genealogy as well as the consent letter issued by the other legal heirs of the Sunitha Bai is not disputed by the Opposite Party society.


The only contention raised by the Opposite Party is that there are several children to the deceased. For the purpose that the deceased having other children Complainant produced family genealogy and the same has been accepted by the Opposite Party and also the consent letter given by the legal heirs of the late Sunitha Bai also accepted. The contention that there are several children but it is not forthcoming who are other several children than the children noted in the genealogy issued by the concerned department. Without there being any material evidence to that effect the Opposite Party simply cannot raise a objection by stating that there are several other children.

We find that the succession certificate will arise when there is a dispute between the co-legal heirs to claim the amount or otherwise the succession certificate will not come into picture. In this case, the amount involved in the F.D. is a small amount the question of obtaining succession certificate does not arise. In the present case, admittedly the Opposite Party bank received the consent letter and the genealogy issued by the concerned Department. Inspite of receiving required document the Opposite Party society is not fair in demanding succession certificate. When the concerned department issued a genealogy certificate, the Opposite Party society cannot overlook the same.

The decision taken by the Opposite Party society is not just and valid in this particular case. After receipt of the genealogy and the consent letter the Opposite Party withheld the amount till this date amounts to deficiency in service. Under the above circumstances, we hereby direct the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.1,500/- along with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of legal notice i.e., 27.9.2008 till the date of payment. However, the interest as well as compensation both cannot be allowed. Interest is always inclusive of compensation. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

6. In the result, we pass the following:


ORDER

The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is hereby directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,500/- along with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of legal notice i.e., 27.9.2008 till the date of payment and further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.