By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Complaint in short is as follows:-
1. Mr Chemban Muhammed Kutty S/o Pocker Haji made fixed deposit of Rs. 1,75,000/- with the opposite party as per fixed deposit receipt No. 1546. The complainant was the nominee as per the fixed deposit record. Mr. Muhamed kutty died on 24/12/2008 and at that time the complainant was aged on 12 years.
2. The complainant approached the opposite party to enquire about the fixed deposits on attaining majority but the opposite party did not provide any details of fixed deposit to the complainant. The opposite party told the complainant that the amount is in fixed deposit and it will be released along with interest when it is required to be release. Accordingly, the complainant approached the opposite party with the authorization letter of other legal hires of deceased depositor chemban Muhammed kutty and then the opposite party released the fixed deposit amount Rs. 1,75,000/- with interest of one year Rs. 17,500/-, which was transferred in to the account of the complainant. The complainant could realize that the opposite party released only 17,500/- rupees as interest and then the complainant approached on 28/11/2020 to enquire about the interest and then it was told that the opposite party released only interest for one year and the balance amount will be released thereafter. Later it was found that the opposite party released an amount of Rs. 2, 52,192/- in to the account of the complainant.
3. The complainant submitted that the father of the complainant deposited the amount at the rate of 10% interest per annum and so the complainant is entitled interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 18/11/2008 to 28/11/2020. The opposite party did not disclose the basis for assessment of the transferred amount as interest of the fixed deposit. Hence the complainant approached the opposite party several times seeking details of the account. Thereafter the complainant issued a notice to pay the principal and interest amount for the period 18/11/2008 to 28/11/2020 i.e. for 12 years. But the opposite party issued a reply notice contending baseless averments.
4. The complainant submitted that in the reply notice dated 03/12/2011 the bank had received a petition from the wife and children of deceased Chemban Muhammed kutty obstructing the release of fixed deposit in favour of the nominee/complainant and so the bank was not able to renew the fixed deposit after attaining maturity of fixed deposit on 18/11/2009. The opposite party was liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% for one year which ends on 18/11/2009. Subsequent to death of depositor the legal heirs did not renew the fixed deposit and moreover some of the legal heirs raised dispute and so the opposite party could not renew the fixed deposit and that reason the opposite party was not able to provide 10% interest on the fixed deposit. Even though, the opposite party considering the interest of the customer calculated interest for the amount 1, 75,000/-at the rate of 4% from 18/11/2009. The legal heirs received the amount after realising the entire issue and thereafter at the instance of somebody the complainant issued notice to the opposite party. The complainant submitted that the reply of the opposite party is baseless and so denied. The complainant submitted that she had approached the opposite party several occasions for the balance amount but the opposite party stated lay excuses to the complainant.
5. The complainant submit that she is entitled interest for the said amount from 18/11/2008 to 28/11/2020 i.e for a period of 12 years at the rate of interest fixed for the deposited amount. The act of the opposite party that not to allow the same amounts deficiency in service. The non-issuance of account statement to the complainant also amounts violation of banking regulation. The act of the opposite parties caused much hardship and inconvenience to the complainant.
6. The complainant submitted that there was a dispute between the deceased father Mr Chemban Muhammedkutty and the opposite party regarding the landed properties comprised in Peruvallur village. Subsequent to the death of the father of complainant the case was decided in favour of the opposite party and the legal heirs preferred appeal before Hon’ble High court of Kerala as RSA 171/2015 which is pending before the Hon’ble high court. The submissions of the complainant is that the act of the opposite party is due to the above stated grudge.
7. Hence the complainant prayed that she is entitled for the balance amount of rupees 1,15,308/- along with further interest. The complainant also prayed compensation of Rs. 2, 00,000/-.
8. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint.
9. The opposite party admitted that the father of the complainant Mr Chemban Muhammed Kutty had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/-as fixed deposit on 18/11/2008 for 12 months at the rate of 10% per annum. On 03/12/2009, the wife of the Chemban Muhammedkutty Mrs. Pathuma and children Bsheer, Ashraf, Sharabi and Fisal filed a petitions before the opposite party contending that the amount shall be released only after considering the rights of the said persons. Due to the said request and dispute in between the legal heirs the opposite party could not renew the fixed deposit after 18/11/2009.
10. The opposite parties submitted that they were not aware that the complainant was minor at the time of deposit. The opposite party denied the averment that the complainant approached the opposite party and enquired on various occasions and then the opposite party did not issue proper reply and that it was said to her that the fixed deposit is therein the bank and it will be released to the complainant etc.
11. The opposite party submitted that Mr Chemban muhamed kutty deposited the amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- on 18/11/2008 for 12 months and so the Muhammed kutty and legal hires are entitled 10% interest of the deposited amount only up to 18/11/2009.
12. The opposite party submitted that the legal heirs approached the opposite party on 25/11/2020 for the release of Rs. 1,75,000/- with interest stating that the dispute between the legal heirs has been settled and accordingly the opposite party released rupees 1,75,000/- along with 10% interest for the period 18/11/2008 to 18/11/2009. The opposite party submitted that the legal heirs did not renew the fixed deposit and also raised dispute among the legal heirs and so the opposite party could not renew the FD and due to that reason the opposite party could not provide 10 % interest for the deposited amount. Even then, the opposite party taking in to consideration of customer interest assessed 4% interest on the said amount and the same was released in favour of legal heirs. The legal heirs is received the said amount from the opposite party recognising the facts in proper sense.
13. The opposite party denied the averment that the complainant approached along with authorization letter of legal heirs on 25/11/2020 and accordingly the opposite party transferred an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- with 12 months interest Rs. 17,500/- on 27/11/2020. The opposite party submitted that in the light of representation submitted by the legal heirs the board of directors met on 27/11/2020 and decided to issue the 1,75,000/- rupees along with 10% interest in favour of the complainant and accordingly the said amount is transferred to the account of the complainant on 27/11/2020. The opposite party submitted that they made an adjustment entry in the relevant column of the bank record to avail 4% interest for the deposited amount from 18/11/2009 and thus it was assessed Rs. 77,192/- and the same was transferred in to the account of the complainant on 28/11/2020.
14. The opposite party submitted that as per the terms, on the due date of fixed deposit the legal heirs are bound to renew the fixed deposit within 14 days after the death of the depositor and the legal heirs being filed a petition contending not to allow the amount in favour of the petitioner, the opposite party bank is not responsible to allow 10% interest for the deposited amount. The submission of the complainant that she approached the opposite party several times but the opposite party refused to issue statement is baseless one.
15. The opposite party submitted that the father of the complainant Mr Muhammed kutty haji had filed OS 201/96 before Munsif court Parappanagadi and the same was allowed in favour of the opposite party and the appeal filed against the order before Tirur court also decided in favour of the opposite party. Due to the above reason complainant and her brother used to file various complaints including before the police station and the same was dismissed finding in favour of the opposite party. The brother of the complainant is still filing various complaints before various authorities. Hence the complainant filed this complaint only to harass the opposite party. The deceased Muhamemd kutty and the opposite party was in good terms even though the dispute was pending. The Muhammed kutty deposited the said amount before the opposite party while pending the above said dispute.
16. The opposite party submitted that the opposite party released the due amount to
the complainant as per the guidance of the reserve bank of India. Hence the allegation of the complainant is baseless and liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
17. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents the complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A6. The documents of the opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B4. Ext. A1 is photocopy of fixed deposit receipt dated 18/11/2008 for Rs.1, 75,000/-. Ext. A2 is receipt issued by the opposite party to the Muhammedkutty Haji dated 27/11/2020 receipt No R19257 dated 27/11/2020 for Rs. 1,75,000/-, receipt R 19258 dated 27/11/2020 Rs. 17,500/-. Ext. A3 is print out for the transfer of Rs. 100 and Rs.17,500/- dated 27/11/2020.Ext.A4 is copy of pass book of account No. 00Z0050009388. Ext. A5 copy of lawyer notice dated 23/07/2021. Ext. A6 is copy of reply dated 09/08/2021. Ext. B1 is copy of complaint filed by legal hires of Chemban Muhammedkutty Haji filed before the opposite party. Ext. B2 is copy application for fixed deposit submitted by Muhammedkutty haji before the opposite party dated 18/11/2008. Ext. B3 is copy of legal advice issued by adv. P.M Noushad to the opposite party. Ext. B4 is copy of letter submitted by legal hires of Chemban Muhammedkutty haji to the opposite party dated 25/11/2020.
18. Heard complainant and opposite party. Perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the side of opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled interest at the rate of 10% per annum for
the entire period of fixed deposit release?
3) Relief and cost.
19. Point No.1 to 3
The case of the complainant is that her father had deposited an amount of Rs. 1, 75,000/- on 18/11/2008 and the same was released in favour of the complainant after 12 years. But the opposite party did not allow 10% interest for the fixed deposit for the entire period and so the prayer of the complainant is to allow Rs. 1, 15,308/- towards the balance interest amount which the complainant is entitled. The complainant also prayed compensation of Rs. 2 lakh and cost of the proceedings. The complainant produced Exts. A1 to A6 to prove her case.
20. The opposite party admitted the deposit made by the deceased Chemban Muhammedkutty Haji, the father of the complainant. The opposite party contended that the fixed deposit was made on 18/11/2008 and which is repayable after 12 months with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The opposite party produced Ext. B1 to B4 to prove the case of opposite party. The specific contention of the opposite party is that the fixed deposit was made only for a period of 12 months with interest at the rate of 10% per annum and the opposite party is only liable to pay 10% interest for the period of one year. It is further contended that the fixed deposit was not renewed subsequently and moreover the legal heirs filed a petition Ext. B1 dated 03/12/2009 opposing the release of FD in favour of the complainant. The opposite party produced Ext. B4 authorizing the complainant to receive the deposit amount from the opposite party. Ext. B4 reveals that the complainant was the nominee in the fixed deposit receipt but the said nomination was not submitted in the prescribed format. Ext. B2 shows the name of complainant as nominee.
21. It can be seen from the document that there was dispute among the legal heirs of deceased Muhammed kutty haji who deposited the amount in the opposite party bank. Ext. B1 and B4 establish the same. Ext B1 reveals that the legal heirs were aware of the fixed deposit with the opposite party bank but they never requeted the opposite party to renew the fixed deposit till the release of fixed deposit. Hence there is reason for the contention taken by the opposite party. The fixed deposit receipts reveals the period of deposit as 12 months with 10% interest per annum. Hence the opposite party is not legally bound to issue 10% interest for the amount after expiry of term of fixed deposit. The opposite party contended that they released the fixed deposit amount with due interest on receipt of proper document as part of the procedure. It is also contended that the opposite party considered the issue of the complainants with considerate view and thereby they issued 4% interest for the amount in deposit with the opposite party bank. The complainant also admitted the release of amount as stated by the opposite party. The facts are being above stated the Commission cannot find that there is deficiency in service on the side of opposite party and they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the entire period. Hence we hold that the complainant is not entitled relief as prayed and the complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2024.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A6
Ext.A1: Photocopy of fixed deposit receipt dated 18/11/2008 for Rs.1, 75,000/-.
Ext.A2: Receipt issued by the opposite party to the Muhammedkutty Haji dated
27/11/2020 receipt No R19257 DATED 27/11/2020 for Rs. 1, 75,000/- receipt R
19258 27/11/2020 Rs. 17,500/-.
Ext A3: Print out for the transfer of Rs. 100 and Rs.17, 500/- dated 27/11/2020.
Ext A4: Copy of pass book of account No. 00Z0050009388.
Ext A5: Copy of lawyer notice dated 23/07/2021.
Ext.A6: Copy of reply dated 09/08/2021.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext.B1 to B4
Ext.B1: Copy of complaint filed by legal hires of Chemban Muhammedkutty Haji filed
before the opposite party.
Ext.B2: Copy application for fixed deposit submitted by Muhammedkutty haji before the
opposite party dated 18/11/2008.
Ext.B3: Copy of advice letter issued by adv. P.M Noushad to the opposite party.
Ext.B4: Copy of letter submitted by legal hires of Chemban Muhammedkutty haji to the
oppose party dated 25/11/2020.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
