IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 17thday of March, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 170/2019 (filed on 21-10-2019)
Petitioners : Preethy John,
W/o. Jose Koshy,
KuttikalaPuthenvilayil House,
Venmony village,
Venmony P.O. ChengannurTlauk,
Pin – 689509 from Nedumpayikulathu
Veedu, Ezhukone village, Kundara P.O.
(Adv. C.K. Thomas)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Kosamattom Finance Ltd.
Kosamattom Mathew K Cherian Building
Market Junction, M.L Road,
Kottayam, Pin – 680001.
Rep. by Managing Director.
2) The Branch Manager,
Kosamattom Finance Ltd.
Kundara.
(For Op 1 and 2, Adv. Baby George Kurian
and Adv. AmalaTreesa Antony)
3) The Manager,
Reserve Bank of India (RBI)
Thiruvananthapuram.
4) Jose Koshy,
S/o. Late J Koshy Panicker,
Nedumpayikulathuveedu,
Ezhukone village, Kundara P.O.
Kollam.
(Adv. DileepLukose)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Crux of the complaint is as follows:
Complainant is the wife of the fourth opposite party and isa teacher in higher secondary school. Since January 2017 thecomplainant is living separated from her husband. The secondopposite party is the manager of the first opposite party whichis a non-banking finance company. The complainant is theholder of the debenture no. 3918 dated 30-7-2012 issued by theKundara branch of the first opposite party for a deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- as doubling scheme maturing on 30-1-2018. Theoriginal debenture certificate is in the custody of the fourthopposite party.
When the complainant approached the second opposite party on17-3-2018 it was informed that the amount was transferred tothe first opposite party. Thereupon the complainant went to thefirst opposite party twice but her demand was refused. Thereafter shereceived a letter on 22-3-2018 stating that since nobody claimedthe amount it was transferred to the head office. After that thecomplainant issued a legal notice seeking the full the full amount of the deposits.As there was no reply, the complainant approached the thirdparty praying their intervention in the matter. Though the thirdopposite party intervened the same was not fruitful. It was stated inthe explanation by the first opposite party to the third opposite partythat the information about the maturity of the debenture wasconveyed to the complainant orally, but as she did not turned uppersonally the payment could not be done. It was furtherclaimed by the first opposite party that the debenture is in thejoint name of the complainant and the forth opposite party andthe first opposite received a legal notice objecting the paymentof the debenture to the complainant. It is alleged in thecomplaint that, thefirst and second opposite parties colluded with fourth oppositeparty for not to intimate the maturity of the debenture and for avoiding the payment to the complainant. Though the third opposite party issued a direction toprovide a copy of debenture, the first opposite party evadedfrom the same stating that the original was in the custody of thefourth opposite party.
According to the complainant, she is entitled for the maturedamount of Rs.Five lakhs. It is further averred in the complaintthat the corresponding income tax was deducted from her salary forthe interest treating it as her income based on intimation fromthe first opposite party. It is alleged in the complaint that thefirst opposite party in connivance with the fourth opposite party is coming with asubsequent claim from the fourth opposite party to defeat herlegitimate claim. According to the complainant the refusal ofpayment by the first and second opposite parties amountsto deficiency in service and she is entitled to receive Rs.5 lakhsalong with interest. Hence this complaint.
Upon notice the opposite parties except the third opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed version. Hence the third opposite partyis declared as ex-party.
Joint version of first and second opposite party as follows:
The complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under theconsumer protection act. The subject matter of the abovecomplaint arises from the matrimonial dispute between thecomplainant and her husband who is the fourth opposite partyand the complaint is not maintainable before this commission. Thecomplainant is not the sole holder of the debenture no. 3918issued by the first and second opposite party. The complainantand her husband are the joint holders of the said debenture andthe complainant had purposefully suppressed the fact. Thecomplainant had neither filed the claim for the matured amountwithin the stipulated time nor produced the original debenturecertificate till date. The debenture is issued in the joint name andmature amount shall be payable to either one of them or thesurvivor. Since the husband of the complainant had objected
the release of the claim amount to the complainant, the firstopposite party was constrained to keep the claim amount inabeyance till the dispute would resolve. The first and secondopposite parties were always prompt in redressing thegrievances of the complainant and always answer her requestsand queries positively. The first and second opposite parties haveneither colluded with the fourth opposite party to defeat theclaim of the complainant nor acted against the interest of thecomplainant. The complainant and the 4th opposite parties haveraised simultaneous claim for the matured amount. Thedebenture certificate is issued in original to the subscriber andit is either with the custody of the complainant or with the fourthopposite party. Hence the first and second opposite parties are unable to provide the complainant with a copy of the debentureaertificate. There is no deficiency in service from the part of thefirst and second opposite parties.
Fourth opposite party filed version contenting as follows:
The complainant and the fourth opposite party are husband andwife having two children and living separately since 31-1-2017.The matter in dispute comes within the ambit of section7(c) of the Family Court Act and hence the complaint is notmaintainable before this Commission.
It is submitted in the version that due to the love and affectionof the fourth opposite party, he had deposited an amount of2,50,000/- in NCD no. 3918 with the first opposite party on 30-7-2012 in doubling scheme which got matured on 31-1-2018.The name of the complainant was mentioned as a name lender.The said amount was raised by the fourth opposite party byselling his ancestral property and the amount was transferredto the first opposite party from the account of the fourth oppositeparty. The original debenture certificate was issued to the fourthopposite party and it was in his safe custody. It is averred in theversion that on January 2017 before leaving with the childrencomplainant tried to take away the debenture certificate fromthe house of the fourth opposite party. The complainant has nolegitimate right to claim the matured debenture which waspurchased by the fourth opposite party. It is further averred inthe version that the complainant and fourth opposite partyavailed a locker facility in SBI PBO branch Kundara operated ineither or survivor mode, on 10-7-2017 the fourth opposite partyreceived a letter from the bank informing that they got aregistered letter from the complainant requesting them to closethe locker and the bank is not in position to close it as it is ajoint locker. Though the fourth opposite party had given adetailed reply to the bank , neglecting the reply the bank allowedthe complainant to close the locker and take away the valuablesof both parties with her an the same was informed to the fourthopposite party on 30-8-2017 by the bank. It is averred in theversion that the complainant is a court bird trying to harass anddefame the fourth opposite party by filing false complaints.Hence, fourth opposite party prayed for the dismissal of thecomplainant.
Evidence part of this case consists of deposition of Pw1 andDw1and exhibit A1 to A12 and B1 to B3.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record wewould like to consider the following points?
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
- Where there is any deficiency in service on the part of the firstand second opposite party?
- If so what are the reliefs and cost?
Point number 1
Complainant is the wife of the fourth opposite party and is ateacher in higher secondary school. According to Pw1 who isthe complainant, she is the holder of the debenture no. 3918dated 30-7-2012 issued by the Kundara branch of the firstopposite party for a deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- as doublingscheme maturing on 30-1-2018. Pw1 deposed that when sheapproached the second opposite party on 17-3-2018 it wasinformed that the amount was transferred to the first oppositeparty. The fourth opposite party who is the husband of the Pw1
resisted the complaint on the ground that the couples were livingseparately and the subject matter in dispute comes within underthe ambit of section 7(c) of the family court and hence thecomplaint is not maintainable before this commission.
The first and second opposite party admits that the complainantand her husband are the joint holders of the debenture. Thus weare of the opinion that the complainant is a consumer of the firstand second opposite party by availing the service of the first andsecond opposite party by depositing an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-in a doubling scheme with the first opposite party.
Another contention put forwarded by the opposite parties thatbeing a matrimonial dispute between the complainant and thefourth opposite party this commission have no jurisdiction toentertain this complaint. Admittedly, the couples were livingseparately since January 2017. Of course the family court havejurisdiction to entertain a suit or proceeding between the partiesto a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or ofeither of them. Under Section 12 of the Act, the CDRC hasjurisdiction to entertain a complaint in relation to any serviceprovided or agreed to be provided.
Section 3 of the said Act reads thus:
“3. Act not in derogation of any other law.-The provisions ofthis Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of theprovisions of any other law for the time being in force”.Depositholder of money with a Bank is a consumer as defined
under Section 2 (d). Reading all these provisions together,certainly deficiency in service provided by a Bank can be thesubject matter of a dispute before a CDRC.
It is pleaded in the complaint that the first and second oppositeparty committed deficiency in service by not realizing thematurity amount of debenture to the complainant. On goingthrough the complaint, we can see that no reliefs are soughtagainst the fourth opposite party who is the husband of thecomplainant. Thus, we are of the opinion that the complaint ismaintainable before this commission.
Point number 2 and 3
Pw1 who is the complainant deposed before the Commission thatshe was the holder of the debenture certificate no. 3198 dated30-7-2012 issued by the second opposite party on a deposit ofRs.2,50,000/- as a doubling scheme . According to thecomplainant said debenture maturated on 30-1-2018 and she is
entitled for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- . It is further deposed byPw1 that when she approached the first and second oppositeparties to redeem the debenture it was informed vide Exhibit A1letter that the said deposit was transferred to the account of thefirst opposite party stating a reason that nobody has claimed for
the redemption of the said debenture. Thereafter she hadreceived Exhibit A3 letter from the third opposite party. Onperusal of exhibit A3 we can see that complaint lodged by Pw1on 28-6-2018 was sent to the first and second opposite party bythe third opposite party. In exhibit A3 it is further stated thatthe first and second opposite parties had informed the thirdopposite party that the debenture in dispute was matured on 30-1-2018 and the complainant was first party and her husbandwas the second party in the debenture and the payment shall bemade to either or survivor. It is further stated in exhibit A3 thatthe first and second opposite party informed the third oppositeparty that on 2-4-2018 the first and second opposite party got alegal notice for and on behalf of the fourth opposite partycontenting that the amount under the debenture in question waswithdrawn from his bank account and the name of thecomplainant was included a name lender only. Hence the thirdopposite party through exhibit A3 advised the complainant tosettle the dispute with the fourth opposite party and to approach
the first and second opposite party for redemption of thedebenture. Exhibit A2 is the reply sent by the first and secondopposite party to the third opposite party.
Admittedly, the complainant and fourth opposite parties areliving separately due to some difference of opinion. In order toprove the source of money which were deposited with the firstopposite party the complainant produced exhibit A12 certificatewhich is issued by the first opposite party. In exhibitA12 it isstated that complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with them vide bond no. 3198 and the interest forthe same was 31875. Exhibit A11 is the copy of the TDS traces whichproves that complainant had disclosed Rs.31875 as her incomeunder section 194A of the Income Tax Act. It is admitted by thecomplainant that she was living separated from her husbandfrom January 2017. It is pertinent to note that she had notproduced any evidence to show that she had disclosed about theincome from interest of the deposit after financial year 2016-2017 ie after she had departed the company of her husband. Onperusal of exhibit B2 we can see that the complainant is wellaware that the debenture was in the joint name of the
complainant and her husband. In exhibit B2 she further directthe first and second opposite parties not to release the fixeddeposited amount to the fourth opposite party.
Though the fourth opposite party contended that the name of thecomplainant is included in the debenture as a name lender he didnot adduce any evidence to substantiate the source of themoney which was alleged to have invested by him in the debenture.Moreover it is pertinent to note that though fourth oppositeparty contended that the debenture was in his custody he didnot produce the same before this Commission . In spite of theorder of this commission he did not care to produce the originaldebenture certificate before this commission.
Since the complainant and her husband are living separately and thedebenture is in the joint name of the complainant and the fourthopposite party therefore, both are entitled to the maturity value inequal shares.
In view of the protest letter of complainant and fourth oppositeparty written to the first and second opposite parties after thematurity of the debenture, they were correct to refuse to release the maturity amount in favour of the complainant.Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency inservice on the part of the opposite parties or that the complainantwas entitled to the amount to the exclusion of her husband.
There is no merit in this complaint and the same is herebydismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 17th day of March, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1- Preethy John
Witness from the side of opposite party
Dw1 – Jose Koshy
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 –Copy of letter dtd.22-03-18 issued by 2nd opposite party to petitioner
A2 – Copy of letter dtd.20-07-18 by 1st opposite party to 3rd opposite party
A3 – Copy of letter dtd.10-08-2018 by 3rd opposite party to petitioner
A4 – Copy of letter dtd.06-10-18 by petitioner to 1st opposite party
A5 – Copy of letter dtd.29-10-18 by 3rd opposite party to petitioner
A6- Copy of letter dtd.07-11-18 by petitioner to 3rd opposite party
A7 – Copy of letter dtd.11-12-18 by 1st opposite party to petitioner
A7(a) – Copy of legal notice dtd.30-03-18 to 1st opposite party
A8 – Copy of letter dtd.14-12-18 by petitioner to 1st opposite party
A9 –Direct tax chalan report for the assessment year 2017-18 of petitioner
A10 – Copy of TDS statement for the year 2017-18 (Subject to proof)
A11 – TDS statement for the year 2016-17
A12 –certificate dtd.19-03-18 issued by 2nd opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 –Temporary receipt dtd.30-07-12 by 1st opposite party
B2 –Copy of letter dtd.16-03-18 by petitioner to 1st opposite party
B3 – Copy of legal notice dtd.21-03-18 to 1st opposite party
By Order
Assistant Registrar
